Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — WALES

Severn Electricity Tunnel

Mr. Stern: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the implications for the development of Welsh industry of a second Severn electricity tunnel; and what steps he is taking to secure such a tunnel.

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Walker): This is an operating matter for the industry, but I understand that there is more than sufficient generating capacity in Wales to meet expected demand in Wales well into the next century. The industry, therefore, has no plans to build a second cable tunnel.

Mr. Stern: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply, because the construction of such a tunnel would cause considerable disruption in and around my constituency. Would he, however, bear in mind that given the strength and the growth of the industry in Wales generally, such provision may be necessary at some time in the future?

Mr. Walker: We are, obviously, reviewing this carefully. Certainly, the present trend in Welsh industry is of remarkable expansion. The inward investment in 1988 is to provide 13,600 jobs and the regional grants which were on offer in 1988 involved 31,500 new jobs. Therefore, one has carefully to examine the needs for energy during a period of such expansion.

Mr Gwilym Jones: My right hon. Friend knows well that the tunnel is not the only alternative, because in his former incarnation as the Secretary of State for Energy, he dramatically increased the public commitment to a Severn barrage, which could also include a road crossing. In view of the chaos last week caused by the closure of the Severn bridge, will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to demonstrate his commitment to the second crossing and state when he expects it to be in place?

Mr. Walker: I am pleased to say that the Ministry of Transport has speeded up the arrangements to obtain the appropriate tenders. I believe that there will be a need for this to be in place as quickly as possible and I envisage that it will be in place by the mid-1990s.

Water Privatisation

Mr. Ray Powell: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of water privatisation on the environment of Wales and the health of the people of Wales.

Mr. Peter Walker: The establishment of the National Rivers Authority has been widely welcomed on environmental grounds. I am satisfied, too, that the proposed regulatory regime, under which the successor company to the Welsh water authority will operate, will provide adequate protection for the customer both in terms of quality of service and charges.

Mr. Powell: As a wet in the Cabinet, is the Secretary of State now drying out on the question of water privatisation, or has he been dangled a carrot by the Prime Minister, as a carrot was dangled to the chairman of the Welsh water authority by his predecessor to persuade him to change his mind about privatisation in one weekend? Has the right hon. Gentleman read in today's Independent an article by Jeremy Warner, which forecasts a 20 per cent. increase in water charges within the next few years—and that is before the investors get their greedy hands on our water? Over the past 10 years it has cost 10p to spend a penny. How long will it be before it costs us £10?

Mr. Walker: I warmly welcome the prospect for the first time of the people of Wales having a direct stake in their water company. I welcome, too, the fact that they will be able to arrange investment programmes without constant reviews by the Treasury, which were especially harsh during periods of a Labour Government. I believe that the provisions secure the river system that was created under the last reorganisation of water and that the Welsh people will warmly welcome the opportunity of having their own direct stake in this industry.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is not a respectable percentage of British water already under private ownership? Will my right hon. Friend tell us whether there have been all these terrible consequences because of that fact?

Mr. Walker: No. What is true is that prior to the last major water reorganisation, when a lot of water was in the hands of local authorities, there were enormous increases in pollution, great problems and a failure to invest. It is true, too, that the investment programmes of water authorities have since been affected by the Treasury decisions of all political parties. I believe that a company very much owned by the Welsh people and its employees—independent and strong—will be a considerable success and an advantage to Wales.

Mr. Livsey: Most people in Wales are opposed to water privatisation, but, nonetheless, it seems as though the Government will try to push this measure through. Has the Secretary of State any practical plans to enable consumers to become shareholders in Welsh Water plc?

Mr. Walker: We will have many plans for all the people of Wales to participate if they wish. I look forward with great pleasure to the hon. Gentleman's party and all the other parties making a commitment at the next election to renationalise the water industry, but I doubt whether they will.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Welsh people are extremely pleased and confident in the steps that he is manifestly taking to ensure that, if there must be privatisation of water, the interests of Welsh consumers and the environment of Wales will be fully protected?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. That is an important matter and I am delighted at the conclusions that we have reached.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the Secretary of State aware of the sharp increase in the number of disconnections of water supplies to households? Will the Government introduce a statutory code on disconnections to ensure that the Welsh water authority sends a representative to visit every house to discover whether it is disconnecting water supplies to the frail, elderly or the disabled, because that is what is happening at present?

Mr. Walker: That is happening under a system that the hon. Gentleman wants to protect and retain. I only hope that if that system is working badly now, it will improve under privatisation.

Mr. Raffan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that as the Welsh water authority regards 95 per cent. of the 88,000 acres of land it owns as operational—in other words essential to water supply and water treatment—and as that land is and will continue to be subject to our planning laws, the threat to the Welsh environment is more imaginary than real?

Mr. Walker: Yes, Sir. It is an understandable ploy to try to create a scare before privatisation—it frequently happens. The present water authority has disposed of land under the present system and I have no doubt that that practice will continue if it considered that it is sensible and correct. I believe that there is no danger on environmental or recreational grounds. In fact there may well be a considerable improvement on recreational grounds.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance that if Welsh Water plc comes into existence—regrettably it appears that that will be the case—people will not be forced, under any circumstances, to take water meters in their homes, because of the adverse effects that that would have on health?

Mr. Walker: I do not know what policy will prevail on water meters in future. However, such a system has operated in certain places in England for some time, for example in Malvern, and I do not believe that there is any evidence that that system has had an adverse effect on people's health.

Mr. Barry Jones: May I confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that the people of Wales already own the Welsh water authority. Surely in health matters the guiding principle is need before profit. If the right hon. Gentleman cannot accept that, we are in danger of regressing to Victorian standards with major implications for public health in Wales. Will the right hon. Gentleman give me an absolute assurance that, after privatisation, we shall not have a steep rise in disconnections and in prices? Will he also come clean on the future of the Wrexham and East Denbighshire water company? Surely he will not abandon that little £6 million company to the takeover specialists.

Mr. Walker: The "owned by the people of Wales" argument also could have been applied to electricity and gas when a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer decided to raise an extra £200 million to meet the payments to the International Monetary Fund from gas and electricity price increases. I do not believe that the people of Wales feel that they have any direct control, ownership or participation in Welsh Water when the investment programmes are settled, not by them, but by the Treasury.
I shall consider the detail and the points raised about the Wrexham and East Denbighshire water company. All I can say is that under present arrangements mergers betwen water companies have taken place, but what happens must be in the best interests of Wrexham and Wales.

Rail Services

Mr. Anderson: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the chairman of British Rail to discuss rail services in Wales.

Mr. Peter Walker: I met Sir Robert Reid on 12 December 1988 when we discussed a range of issues. I am glad to say that since that meeting British Rail has announced additional morning and evening trains on the Paddington to south Wales line, with an additional 1,600 seats per day on the evening service out of Paddington from May 1989. Indeed, some extra trains are being introduced this very day.

Mr. Anderson: When the Secretary of State meets the chairman of British Rail he should raise two matters designed to maximise the advantages to Wales of the Channel tunnel. First, because the new terminal will be sited at King's Cross, will he consider the importance of the cross-London link with the west and Wales route? Secondly, if the advantages of the Channel tunnel are to be spread throughout south Wales, will he consider the need for a second freight terminal in south-west Wales, ideally in Danygraig near Swansea?

Mr. Walker: I shall certainly convey those views to the chairman of British Rail. We had a long discussion about the Channel tunnel. British Rail's final schemes have not been fixed and the final decisions have not been taken, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that in the view of the chairman of British Rail the potential of freight from south Wales was of considerable advantage to British Rail which is anxious to have good arrangements for the use of the Channel tunnel. I shall convey the specific points raised by the hon. Gentleman to the chairman of British Rail.

Mr. Coleman: Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied with his discussions with British Rail about improved passenger services? Is he aware that those of us who use the line from Cardiff to Swansea are experiencing a diminution of the service? Is he aware that not all Inter-City 125 trains terminate at Swansea?

Mr. Walker: I specifically discussed the line from Cardiff to Swansea and its future. I am pleased to inform the hon. Gentleman that the line is doing well and remaining viable and that freight and passenger traffic is increasing. British Rail has plans to improve the volume of service and the availability to passengers on that particular stretch of the line.

Mr. Stern: When my right hon. Friend next meets the chairman of British Rail, will he raise yet again the effect of a curfew on travel from Wales via Bristol late at night? For some time it has been impossible to travel back to Bristol at any sensible time in the evening. Would it not be a good idea to reinstate the service, which I am quite sure affects the constituencies of many Opposition Members as well as my own?

Mr. Walker: The service between Bristol and Cardiff was not specifically discussed. I shall certainly look into the matter and convey my hon. Friend's views to British Rail.

European Community

Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next plans to visit the European Commission or to attend the Council of Ministers in relation to the particular needs of Wales.

Mr. Peter Walker: I hope to visit Brussels during the next few months for discussions with incoming members of the Commission on matters of relevance to Wales.

Dr. Thomas: How many times has the Secretary of State for Wales attended the Council of Ministers as a United Kingdom Minister? If he has not, done so, why not?

Mr. Walker: I have not done so because, having negotiated with the Council of Ministers on previous occasions, I believe that the best negotiating strength is to have one negotiator. I hold that view very strongly. I know that the hon. Gentleman is in the middle of an election campaign. I am very happy to discuss the considerable investments that have come to Wales, including those parts that he is hoping to represent, as a result of negotiation which I have influenced and in which I have taken part.

Mr. Denzil Davies: When the right hon. Gentleman meets the Commission will he explain that his Government's policy of high interest and exchange rates is now beginning to have a damaging effect on the Welsh economy? Will he also ask the Commission to bring pressure upon Her Majesty's Government at last to join the European monetary system so that we can have lower interest rates, more realistic exchange rates and a better chance for the Welsh economy?

Mr. Walker: In the right hon. Gentleman's views of the current state of the Welsh economy I recognise the eagerness of the Labour party to spread depression at the earliest possible moment. The figures that I gave in answer to an earlier question—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman would like the last three months' figures on inward investment into Wales, it is just possible that the high interest rates affecting some overheated parts of the economy are making firms and industries elsewhere consider the possibility of moving. I am also glad to say that last week interest was expressed in an acquisition of considerable importance in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Setting aside the manifest desirability of Britain joining the European monetary system and exchange rate mechanism, just how much influence does my right hon. Friend reckon Wales would

exercise in Brussels were we to follow the policies advocated by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Dr. Thomas)?

Mr. Walker: The influence is very considerable. I believe that the talks that I shall have with individual members of the Commission, specifically bringing to their attention some of the problems in Wales in various sectors of economic activity, are very important. I believe that the total clout of the British Government in achieving those objectives is considerable and would he diminished if the policies pursued by at least one party in the House were carried out.

Eggs

Mr. leuan Wyn Jones: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met representatives of egg producers in Wales; and what was discussed.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Mr. Wyn Roberts): Representatives of egg producers in Wales have not requested any meetings with my right hon. Friend, but meetings with officials have been arranged.

Mr. Jones: Does the Minister agree that the confusion that arose following the statement by the then junior Health Minister, which led to disastrous consequences for egg producers and uncertainty among consumers, was the result of Government inefficiency, in that two Departments were giving conflicting advice? Does the Minister further agree that the real lesson to be drawn as a result of this episode is that on issues such as this the Government should speak with one voice and issue clear and unambiguous guideliness to both consumers and producers?

Mr. Roberts: I disagree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question. Uncertainty over the implications of salmonella gave rise to a sharp decline in egg sales before Christmas. In those wholly exceptional circumstances, the Government decided to introduce short-term measures, which have been very effective. The surplus has been removed and there is every prospect of balanced production in the near future. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is close liaison on health aspects between the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health. There is similar close liaison between the departments in the Welsh Office that are the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Does my hon. Friend agree that both sides are equally vital: that without the fanner there would be no consumer and that without the consumer there would be no farmer? I believe that my hon. Friend, and his counterpart in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, should be congratulated on introducing the compensation scheme at such short notice. It has achieved fairness for both the producer and the consumer and it has cost the taxpayer far less than was anticipated.

Mr. Robert: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right; the measures were introduced very quickly and they have been successful. The interests of


both producers and consumers have been protected as far as possible, and of course, much more will be done in the future.

Local Authority Associations

Mr. Murphy: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the Welsh local authority associations; and what matters were discussed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Ian Grist): My right hon. Friend met representatives of the Welsh counties committee and the committee of Welsh district councils at a meeting of the Welsh consultative council on local government finance on 8 December to discuss the Welsh rate support grant settlement for 1989–90.

Mr. Murphy: Does the Minister agree that in these discussions the district councils in Wales have been pressing for more cash in order to reduce the appallingly high number of people on housing waiting lists in Wales, now at a record 70,000? Does he also agree that house prices in Wales have risen faster than in any other part of the United Kingdom? Does he not accept that housing prospects for young people in the Principality have now reached crisis point?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Gentleman knows full well that housebuilding in Wales is reaching a new peak and that over £70 million was voted for new housebuilding in Wales this year. It will have a major impact on housing conditions. I am afraid that waiting lists are a reflection, as much as anything, of social change and breakdown. That is something that does not lie within the Government's remit to alter. Prices are a reflection of demand. Demand in Wales is rising because we have a successful economy. Rising prices are also a reflection of rising earnings, which regrettably are part of the inflationary spiral that we wish to bring down.

Dr. Marek: Will the Minister confirm that housing benefit will continue to be paid to local councils in Wales according to how much, in each year, they pay out?

Mr. Grist: Housing benefit will be made available to councils to meet the cost of economic rents for those in receipt of benefit. We have made that plain from the start.

Health Service

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what initiatives he plans to take in 1989 to improve the standards of the Health Service in Wales and increase the morale of staff at all levels of the Health Service.

Mr. Grist: Record numbers of patients were treated in 1987–88, and the record level of resources announced recently by my right hon. Friend should enable authorities to do even better in 1989.

Mr. Michael: Does the Minister recognise the inadequacy of that response? Does he realise just how much ancillary workers contribute to the tender loving care that is provided by the Health Service and that their low pay is now a real embarrassment to consultants and administrators as well as to patients and the general public? What does he say to the domestic worker who this

month told the South Wales Echo that the reward for 18 years' service was to be forced into part-time work and to lose £18 a week?

Mr. Grist: That is a change of song from how badly paid nurses were and remembering how badly paid medical staffs were in the 1970s. The hon. Gentleman changes his tune as it suits him. We have been seeking to ensure that payments in the Health Service go towards patient benefit. Competitive tendering is to the benefit of the patient and the Health Service. We shall continue that policy within the Health Service and local government.

Sir Raymond Gower: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that health authorities in Wales use the money that is allocated to them in the best possible way? Is he aware that the South Glamorgan health authority, for example, proposes to use it in the wrong way? It intends to build an utterly unnecessary hospital in south Cardiff and not to make use of the marvellous facilities that are available in hospitals such as Sully hospital in my constituency. That is the absurdity of the position. Many consultants in the Llandough-Sully area have told me that they regard the proposed hospital for south Cardiff as wasteful, unnecessary and harmful to the Health Service in the county of South Glamorgan.

Mr. Grist: My hon. Friend's support for Sully hospital has been noted for many years. What he said this afternoon will be taken note of by my right hon. Friend in considering the draft strategic plan of the health authority which is before him at present.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Has the Minister had recent discussions with junior doctors? What hours do they work? I believe that their hours are still very long. What has the Welsh Office done in the past year or two to provide resources to cut the hours that junior doctors on call must work in hospitals?

Mr. Grist: It is fortunate for us in Wales that few junior doctors in Wales work the long hours that have been reported in England. We take the matter seriously. Our district authorities convene meetings to look into the matter, and we are monitoring closely. As I said, we do not have the problem that is experienced in England.

Mr. Raffan: When does my hon. Friend expect to publish the study that he commissioned on cancer treatment services for patients in north Wales? What action is the Welsh Office taking to reduce the lengthy time that north Wales patients must wait for cardiological services at Liverpool?

Mr. Grist: I shall write to my hon. Friend on the latter point. On the comprehensive study of cancer services, which was started on 1 September last year, it is a little early as yet for a report, but we shall certainly release it as soon as we can.

Mrs. Clwyd: Will the Minister explain—if he cannot explain, will he order an investigation—the substantial increase in deaths from breast cancer in six out of eight Welsh counties and from cervical cancer in four out of eight Welsh counties over the past 10 years? In view of the alarming figures, is the Minister satisfied that the screening programme in Wales is adequate?

Mr. Grist: The hon. Lady must accept that it is a little difficult to assess matters over the past 10 years when we


have only just put in place the cervical cancer screening service, which is covering the whole of Wales now, and the breast cancer screening service, which, as she knows, was launched at the headquarters and with the new team in Cathedral road, Cardiff, and will be available shortly. It is a little early to draw conclusions from the past 10 years so I cannot answer her on that.

Mr. Favell: Are there any firm proposals to contract out medical services, following the excellent private sector kidney dialysis unit at Bangor, Caernarvon, which has saved lives and reduced waiting lists? Is that to be done elsewhere in Wales?

Mr. Grist: Certainly, this is a system that we would recommend widely. As my hon. Friend said, it has been spreading through Wales and we hope that it will serve as an example for other parts of the United Kingdom.

A470

Mr. Livsey: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for improving the A470 trunk road in mid-Wales.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Our policy for the A470 is to continue to undertake selective improvements to reduce journey times, improve road safety, and remove through traffic from communities. Details of planned schemes will be included in the forthcoming edition of "Roads in Wales".

Mr. Livsey: Has the Minister studied the development of the A9 in Scotland, from Perth to Inverness, which overcame many of the sorts of problems with which the A470 is confronted in Wales? Does he have plans to put into action a programme of a similar type to that for the A9, which has cost historically £240 million for 112 miles of road, as a comprehensive scheme to improve the A470 and bring Welsh communications into the 20th century?

Mr. Roberts: The A9 in Scotland is a far cry from the A470 in Wales, on which we have already spent about £134 million, involving 26 schemes, since 1979. We are due to spend another £43 million on a further 26 schemes which are in preparation. If my arithmetic is correct, those two figures added together are pretty near the figure the hon. Gentleman gave for the A9.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Minister accept that improvements to the A470 in mid-Wales will merely make more accessible the land holdings now owned by the Welsh water authority? That being so, does he recognise that they will become more attractive to foreign investment? The safeguards that the Secretary of State announced on 11 January, which were designed to keep Welsh water holdings in Welsh hands after privatisation, will not be successful. Will he bear these points in mind when improving the A470, and take all necessary steps to protect our valuable holdings?

Mr. Roberts: I have already said that we have about 26 further improvement schemes for the A470 in mind. They will help to make that beautiful part of mid-Wales more easily accessible.
With regard to the land holdings of the water plc, as my right hon. Friend has just told the House, the water authority has the power to sell land and the future plc will

have the same power. But that is subject to planning permission and all the other constraints related to the purity of the water supply.

Disabled People

Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he proposes to take to improve services for physically disabled people in Wales; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Grist: Wales has often taken the lead in the provision of services for the disabled. We will continue to consult with the main interested bodies over further developments.

Mr. Wigley: Is the Minister aware of the dismay at the length of time it has taken for the Welsh Office to respond to the representations made last July by the Welsh Council for the Disabled and the Spastics Society in Wales? I understand that it will be next month before a meeting takes place. Does he accept that the Welsh Office's planning statistics show that there has been a steady decline in expenditure by social service authorities on services for the physically handicapped over the past 12 years? What will he do to ensure a strategic approach that guarantees fair play for physically handicapped people in Wales?

Mr. Grist: I pay tribute to the discussion document to which the hon. Gentleman referred, to his part in it and to the activity behind it. We certainly take next month's meeting between these organisations and officials in my Department extremely seriously, and I hope that we shall be able to progress from there.
It is a little unfair to say that expenditure has been falling, as there has been an increase of about £3·5 billion in expenditure on the disabled under this Government—a 92 per cent. real increase since we came to office.

Mr. Geraint Howells: I am sure the Minister is aware that the people of mid-Wales have been trying to collect £400,000 to buy a scanner for Bronglais hospital in Aberystwyth during the past four months. Up to now we have exceeded £220,000 in that attempt. Does he have any plans to give us a contribution?

Mr. Grist: My wife is a member of the league of friends of Cardiff royal infirmary and she is doing her best for that hospital. I have visited Gwynedd and viewed its new scanner which, I believe, was opened today. There are voluntary movements all around Wales, which are a sign of the local spirit and of the local communities' support for their health authorities and their health movement. We should like to see a great deal more of that.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Roy Hughes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what are the latest unadjusted figures for unemployment in (a) Newport, (b) Gwent and (c) Wales; and if he will give the equivalent figures for 1979 on the most nearly comparable basis.

Mr. Peter Walker: On 8 December 1988 the number of unemployed claimants in the Newport district, Gwent and Wales were 6,056, 18,200 and 114,533 respectively. Unadjusted figures for 1979 are not available on a basis that enables a valid comparison to be made. I am sure that


the hon. Gentleman will welcome the continuing downward trend in unemployment in Wales which fell by 24,800 in the past 12 months, and by 59,800 in the past 33 months.

Mr. Hughes: Does the Secretary of State agree that Britain is now regarded as the filthiest country in Europe, with streets littered with litter, junk and graffiti and that there is plenty of evidence of that in Wales? Therefore, would it not be sensible to take people off the dole queue to perform the vital work of clearing it up? It is one thing to keep down the rates, but does the Minister agree that that should not be at the expense of essential services?

Mr. Walker: This Government have a remarkable record of providing jobs in community programmes. I was disappointed that the hon. Gentleman did not turn up at the last Welsh Question Time to ask that question. I thought that that was because he was depressed by the progress that has been made. That progress has now accelerated and there has been a terrific improvement in the position in Newport so I hope that, for once, the hon. Gentleman will welcome it.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in terms of unemployment decreasing, the record in Wales is excellent? Many of us in the south-west, and certainly in Weymouth in my constituency look with great pride at the way in which Welsh people have demonstrated their ability to attract high technology jobs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the thoughts of the people of Wales should not be on picking up rubbish and litter but on the high technology jobs that the Government have provided?

Mr. Anderson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Was that not a clear abuse of the House?

Mr. Speaker: It is a United Kingdom Parliament.

Mr. Walker: I am sure that my hon. Friend regrets that several Opposition Members, representing Welsh constituencies, are not as enthusiastic as he is about the considerable inward investment in Wales, the considerable volume of new businesses that are being created in Wales and the wide diversity of free enterprise economies that are now taking place in Wales which, I am afraid, leave no place for Socialism in the future.

Mr. Barry Jones: May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of the sharp attack on high interest rates that was made by the CBI director for Wales, the much respected Mr. Kelsall? Did the right hon. Gentleman see the reference by the Cardiff chamber of trade to high interest rates being "a headache"? Does he agree that the policies of the Chancellor of the Exchequer are creating difficulties that imperil the Welsh economy's capacity for recovery? We all know that the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on high interest rates, but what is he going to do besides making coded attacks?

Mr. Walker: One thing I will not do is be lectured by a Minister of a former Administration, under whom high interest rates and penal taxation were combined with high inflation. There was very real damage during that period, which compares with last year when there was record inward investment, record regional assistance and regional

aid, record factory building and record numbers of new businesses. I am delighted that the CBI in Wales is delighted at the progress being made.

Nurses (Pay)

Mr. Morgan: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many appeals have been lodged by nurses employed by the South Glamorgan health authority and in Wales as a whole.

Mr. Grist: The number of formal appeals is not yet known.

Mr. Morgan: I welcome that comprehensive answer. It must be a record for comprehensiveness. Without pressing the Minister on the absent statistics, may I ask him whether as a matter of principle he has yet made up his mind about accepting appeals from bank nurses? In England they appear to have been told that they can appeal against their grading, but they cannot do so in Wales despite the heavy responsibilities which, like night nurses, they carry in the hospital service.

Mr. Grist: I think that the hon. Gentleman has been in correspondence with us. Bank nurses have never had the right of appeal and it is not the case, as some people have asserted, that this has been removed from them by their employers. There is an exception in some cases where a bank nurse works regular hours each week and where she might be classed as a part-time member of staff. I think that that is where the misunderstanding with England may have come about.

Rating Reform

Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the implications of the introduction of poll tax for the percentage of the population of Wales of 18 years and over who will appear on the electoral register for 1989.

Mr. Grist: We do not expect the community charge to have any effect on the electoral register.

Mr. Barnes: By common usage and common sense, the community charge is generally known as the poll tax because it taxes people per head. Are people liable to lose their political heads by not registering for payment either on the poll tax register or on the electoral register, and will that not affect Wales as well as England and Scotland?

Mr. Grist: I think that the hon. Gentleman makes the wish father of the thought. Over 99 per cent. of people in Scotland have registered for the community charge despite the best efforts of what I regard as some irresponsible Opposition Members.

Oral Answers to Questions — ATTORNEY-GENERAL

House of Fraser (Takeover)

Mr. Rooker: To ask the Attorney-General if he will make a statement on the progress of consideration by the Director of Public Prosecutions and the director of serious fraud office of the inspectors' report on the takeover of the House of Fraser and the contents of the book "A Hero from Zero".

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): Investigations are continuing and will be concluded as soon as possible.

Mr. Rooker: I thank the Solicitor-General for that reply. Does he accept that it is six months this week since the serious fraud office received the inspector's report on the House of Fraser? Will he confirm that there is no undue delay in reaching a decision one way or the other simply because people in high places are involved? Does he accept that the longer the delay in reaching a decision, the greater will be the concern of the thousands of House of Fraser employees who have been bought and sold by international business men as if they were pawns? It appears from the report that they are, in the words of one of the judges, being bought and sold
from cash from under the mattress.

The Solicitor-General: I certainly confirm that the matter is of considerable complexity and has been proceeding with all proper expedition.

Mr. Tim Smith: Does the Solicitor-General have any additional information about the book "A Hero from Zero"? Could he tell the House the selling price, how many copies have been sold and whether it has yet appeared in the best-seller lists? Will he be recommending it for the Booker prize for fiction?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend will appreciate that those facts do not fall within my responsibilities.

Director of Public Prosecutions

Mr. Mullin: To ask the Attorney-General when he last met the Director of Public Prosecutions; and what was discussed.

The Attorney-General (Sir Patrick Mayhew): On Wednesday 18 January. We discussed a variety of matters of departmental interest.

Mr. Mullin: Does the Attorney-General not agree that it is extraordinary that these two rogues, the Al Fayed brothers, have pulled off one of the biggest stings in British financial history? They have misled the Government and their merchant bankers, Kleinwort Benson, and have breached the Companies Act. Will the Attorney-General tell us whether it is out of concern for those in high places whose reputation is at stake that he has waited so long to take any sort of action in this case?

The Attorney-General: I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General has dealt with that part of the hon. Gentleman's lengthy question which falls within the responsibility of the Law Officer.

Mr. Lawrence: Did my right hon. and learned Friend discuss with the Director of Public Prosecutions the Green Paper on the future of the legal professions? In particular, is he aware that if solicitor members of the Crown Prosecution Service, or any other solicitors, are accorded extended rights of audience in the higher courts, there will be no reason for youngsters entering the legal profession to choose the Bar with its much lower early earnings, and, as a result, the Bar will wither away? Is that part of the Government's intention?

The Attorney-General: These matters will, no doubt, fall within the purview of the Green Paper to be produced shortly by my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor.

Mr. John Morris: While I welcome the appointment of a distinguished lawyer as Director of Public Prosecutions, is it not time to consult the head of the Civil Service on whether a top administrator should be drafted in to support him? Will the Attorney-General accept that there is deep concern, at a senior level within the CPS, about achieving its objectives and providing an organisation of which young lawyers can be proud? Will he now examine the concern about the divorce between those who make the policy and those who handle case work and the undue pressure to produce bits of paper as tools of management? Since "tinkering with the system"—to quote the Sunday Times—is ineffective, would the right hon. and learned Gentleman object to some of the administrative responsibilities of himself, the Lord Chancellor and the Government's legal service generally being subjected to the scrutiny of a Select Committee?

The Attorney-General: I have full confidence in the administration of the Crown Prosecution Service under the directorship of the DPP, Mr. Allan Green. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that there are always difficulties when one sets up a new service, as has been the case here. However, it is more constructive and helpful generally to those who have worked extremely hard and effectively within the service, admittedly understaffed in the lawyers' section in its first two years, to reflect on the views of, for example, the president of the Association of Chief of Police Officers, the chairman of the Magistrates Association and the deputy assist ant commissioner, who heads the Metropolitan police liaison with the CPS. All of them have remarked recently on the great improvement in the performance of the CPS in comparison with its early months.

Abortion

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: To ask the Attorney-General how many prosecutions were brought by the Crown Prosecutions Service under the Infant Life Preservation Act 1929 in 1988 and if he will make a statement.

The Solicitor-General: None, Sir.

Mr. Hargreaves: May I suggest that the Infant Life Preservation Act is not being implemented? As it gives no protection to children capable of being born alive or, for that matter, to babies being born alive and left to die, would it not be better to repeal it?

The Solicitor-General: My hon. Friend probably misunderstands the requirements of the Infant Life Preservation Act. The case that he has in mind was carefully looked into and it is clear that there was no evidence on which anybody could have been charged. The Act could, nevertheless, be helpful in appropriate circumstances.

Miss Widdecombe: Bearing in mind that the Carlisle baby was born alive, are we to assume that the Infant Life Preservation Act not only fails to give coverage to those capable of being born alive but gives no recourse in law to the parents of a child born alive but allowed to die?

The Solicitor-General: Once again, I think that my hon. Friend does not appreciate the ingredients of the Act, but I should be happy to discuss them with her, in private.

Crown Prosecution Service

Mr. Vaz: To ask the Attorney-General what steps he proposes to take to improve staffing levels in the Crown Prosecution Service; and if he will make a statement.

The Attorney-General: I have recently announced a new recruitment campaign, led by a senior lawyer in the Crown Prosecution Service, aimed at reducing its current shortfall of some 400 lawyers. The Government's acceptance last week of Sir Robert Andrew's recommendations for an improvement in the pay of Government lawyers will be of significant help to our efforts.

Mr. Vaz: I listened carefully to the reply given by the Attorney-General to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberavon (Mr. Morris) and I agree that we should congratulate those who work in the service on the enormous work that they do under great pressure. However, is not the operation of the CPS approaching a crisis? In Leicester, only 10 of the 22 established posts for lawyers have been filled. Although this is a new service, is it not important that we have an independent inquiry into the way in which the service is operated, because of the staffing levels? I say this as a friend of the service and as one who campaigned for the establishment of an independent service.

The Attorney-General: I am grateful for what the hon. Gentleman has said and for his support of the service, which is acknowledged and much appreciated. The answer to his question about an independent inquiry is no. The difficulties are well known. The CPS is deploying its bait for recruits in a pool that is already overfished. Contrary to popular impression, there is a shortage of lawyers. We have to make the CPS more attractive, and we are already succeeding in that because of the pay increase that I was able to announce towards the end of last year. Sir Robert Andrew's recommendations hold further promise for improvement. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but it would only be an unnecessary distraction if the inquiry that he suggests took place.

Mr. Hind: Will my right hon. and learned Friend bear in mind that once the Green Paper, to be published on Wednesday, comes before hon. Members, pressure will inevitably develop for the Crown Prosecution Service to be able to hire its own barristers to undertake Crown court cases? Will he therefore consider, when the matter is raised, that at present salary levels, senior juniors with 15 or 20 years' experience who are currently carrying out prosecutions for the service at the Old Bailey and in Crown courts throughout the country, will not be attracted to the service?

The Attorney-General: Those are considerations that might usefully arise after the publication of the Green Paper. I hope that my hon. Friend will excuse me if I do not follow him into those realms now.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT

War on Want

Mr. Allen: To ask the Secretaryof State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will meet representatives of War on Want to discuss aid policy.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Chris Patten): I am prepared to meet representatives of War on Want to discuss matters of mutual concern.

Mr. Allen: Will the Minister meet representatives of War on Want to discuss the overseas aid provided by the Government? At 0·28 per cent. of GNP, it is shameful and nowhere near the United Nations recommended level of 0·7 per cent. of GNP. Will he take the opportunity to read the fourth report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and set a timetable for the Government to do their duty by the United Nations and the people who require aid, and ensure that they meet the United Nations target?

Mr. Patten: I shall be delighted to meet representatives of War on Want, or other non-governmental organisations, at any time. I shall be happy to point out to them that our aid programme is set to increase by 5 per cent. in real terms and 18 per cent. in cash terms over the coming public expenditure period. To those figures I hope that we can now add the substantial additional assistance that will be provided to Nigeria.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Were my hon. Friend to meet representatives of War on Want, would he express the view of many voluntary workers that War on Want should spend less time on party political bashing in this country and more time on providing additional assistance to those in need abroad, where it should be actively involved?

Mr. Patten: War on Want's campaign material is not balanced or objective and I suspect that it is not meant to be. Its content is a matter for the trustees and, from time to time, for the Charity Commissioners.

Miss Lestor: If the Minister meets representatives from War on Want or any other agency, no doubt they will remind him that the Prime Minister, when referring to the Government's 1981 overseas aid spending, said:
When economic circumstances permit, we will move towards the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP.
War on Want and others, including the Select Committee, remind the Government that, as the Christian Aid report published this month states, official development assistance is now only 64 per cent. of its real value in 1979. Therefore, it depends on from where the Minister selects his figures. Will the Minister say when a timetable will be set to meet the United Nations target?

Mr. Patten: Our position on a target is the same as that of our predecessors, the previous Labour Government. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and my other right hon. Friends will be able to point to the real terms increase of our aid programme as an indication of what we can do with a stronger economy.

Afghanistan

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on British assistance given to Afghanistan.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the current level of aid being given to Pakistan to assist with the provision for refugees from Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Chris Patten: We have provided about £60 million of aid since 1980 through United Nations agencies and non-governmental organisations for the relief and support of Afghan refugees in Pakistan. Our contribution this financial year is £10 million.

Mr. Butler: Will my hon. Friend confirm that no aid will be given to prop up the Kabul regime? After the fall of the regime, will aid be given for crop substitution to prevent the problem of drugs arising from that area?

Mr. Patten: We shall not be providing any aid to the Kabul regime. We shall continue to provide assistance through international organisations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Red Cross and through non-governmental organisations such as the admirable Afghan Aid. I hope that we shall be able to provide assistance for crop substitution programmes. We support some good ones that are just over the border in Pakistan. I look forward to the day when in a free Afghanistan we can provide similar assistance to such projects there.

Mr. Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that although Pakistan is a poor country it has set an example to the world in the dignity, understanding and charity with which it has looked after so many refugees for such a long time? Bearing in mind that those refugees are unlikely ever to return to Afghanistan even if the war comes to an end and peace is restored, does my hon. Friend accept that the free world has a continuing responsibility to Pakistan?

Mr. Patten: I endorse what my hon. Friend has said about the role that Pakistan has played in hosting so many refugees for so long. Having seen some of the camps near Peshawar, I think that he is entirely right to give the Pakistan Government a good deal of credit for the way in which they have behaved over the past few years. I hope that he is being pessimistic in suggesting that there will not be a substantial return of refugees to Afghanistan. Such return as there is will depend on peace and stability in that country. We hope that those conditions will return, but in the meantime we shall continue to provide assistance through every channel that is available.

Burundi

Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what development assistance Her Majesty's Government have offered to Burundi following the widespread killings there in October.

Mr. Chris Patten: We have provided through Oxfam £65,000 for Burundian refugees in Rwanda.

Sir Russell Johnston: Is there stability now and have the massacres ceased? Has any more development assistance been offered within the country since the European Community provided about 650 million ecu in August?

Mr. Patten: There has not been any additional European assistance beyond the European Community's

contribution, to which we contributed about £115,000. We are substantial contributors to the UNHCR's programmes in Africa as a whole, spending about £13·6 million on its African programmes last year. The hon. Gentleman will know that we do not have a permanent diplomatic mission in Burundi, but we believe that the situation is calm at present and that the majority of refugees have returned. We welcome the recent steps to increase Hutu representation in the Cabinet. We hope that the president will introduce Hutu officers into the ruling military committee for national salvation.

Nigeria

Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how he will assist trade and education opportunity in Nigeria during 1989.

Mr. Chris Patten: We continue to support Nigeria through our substantial technical co-operation programme, which includes assistance to the education sector. Trade opportunities in Nigeria should benefit from the ecomomic adjustment programme on which we hope Nigeria is about to reach agreement with the International Monetary Fund. We have offered Nigeria a grant of USA 100 million in 1989 on condition that the IMF standby arrangement is approved and that other donors make a substantial contribution.

Mr. Speller: I thank my hon. Friend for his useful answer. Does he accept that if a young person is trained in a host country such as the United Kingdom, the odds are that he will use British methods, equipment and machinery for the rest of his working life? Does he accept also that any cut in aid to overseas countries for education will be in every sense counter-productive for our commercial interests in the years to come?

Mr. Patten: I sympathise with my hon. Friend's argument though I do not think that matters are as mechanistic as he suggests. I am grateful for the work that he does through the West Africa committee to improve Anglo-Nigerian relations and to draw attention to the arguments that he has adduced. I am sure that he will he delighted to know that our technical co-operation and training programme in Nigeria is set to grow quite substantially. We shall be training about 365 Nigerians in the United Kingdom this year, and we intend to increase that figure to about 470 next year.

Surplus Food

Mr. Wigley: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the Government's policy on giving to third world countries which suffer from famine, surplus food produced in Britain; whether this forms an integral part of the overseas aid programme; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Chris Patten: We give priority to meeting requirements for famine and other emergencies under our food aid programme, which is an integral part of the overseas aid programme. We seek to purchase food from the most appropriate source, making use of both surpluses in developing countries and surpluses produced in Britain and other European Community countries.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that there is something immoral in there being such massive food mountains in the West and pressure—indeed financial inducements—on producers to reduce production when people are dying of famine? Thousands have died of famine during this hour of Question Time. Is there no way in which we can be more positive about the logistics and mechanisms involved in diverting food to those who need it?

Mr. Patten: I sympathise with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's argument, which is why we made reform of the European Community's food aid programme one of our major priorities during our presidency of the Council of Ministers. We succeeded in implementing that priority

task. Food surpluses, questions about which should perhaps be directed to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, can ultimately be tackled only through international action to reform agricultural policies in the richer countries of the world. We have been prominent in pressing for reform, but there is nothing more important to developing countries than continuing liberalisation of trade arrangements, and especially reductions in agricultural subsidies.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS &amp;c.

Ordered,
That the Food Protection (Emergency Prohibitions) Order 1989 (S.I., 1989, No. 3) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Point of Order

Mr. Max Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the weekend, the Home Secretary, in a well publicised speech made to his constituents, talked about immigration matters, and, yesterday, to listeners to BBC radio, he again made remarks which are directly connected with an article that appeared in yesterday's The Observer under the headline:
Police set to raid sanctuaries".
The article reported what was described as
a well-placed source in the Home Office's Immigration Service
as saying:
the word is to go out and whack them. It is going to be like Mendis—snatched and deported within 48 hours"—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I accept this is a matter for the Home Secretary, not for me. What is the hon. Member's point of order?

Mr. Madden: As the Home Secretary is now walking towards the Dispatch Box, can I plead with him, through you, Mr. Speaker, to make the statement that he refused to make last Thursday and Friday before the deportation of Viraj Mendis? May we ask him to make a statement about his policy on deportation, in view of most disturbing remarks by one of his officials, which The Observer published yesterday?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Home Secretary. I am sure that he has heard what has been said.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

There has often been a sense of routine about the timetable motions that I and my predecessors from both sides of the House have introduced in the past. They have usually been moved because the Opposition of the day had been making rather too enthusiastic a use of a legitimate weapon—time—while the Government of the day, in the end, were entitled to get their business. Barring one or two occasions, such as the famous one in July 1976, the debates have followed a fairly standard pattern, with the Leader of the House explaining how reasonable the Government were being, and his opposite number claiming that the guillotine motion heralded the imminent arrival of a police state.
Today, however, is not one of those occasions. Since tabling this motion, further discussions have taken place through the usual channels, but before I discuss that, I wish to remind the House that today we are dealing with a Bill which, if not enacted by a specific date, will have repercussions extending considerably beyond an embarrassment to the Government at suffering delay to their programme, or a temporary boost in morale for the Opposition.
As the House knows, the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 expires on 21 March this year. It is essential, if our society is to have adequate means with which to fight terrorism, that the current Bill receives Royal Assent on or before that date, and comes into force on 22 March.
If the Bill does not come into force on that date, arrest and detention powers and the power of exclusion will be lost, both of which would have extremely damaging consequences. Police throughout the United Kingdom would be without the power to arrest a person on reasonable suspicion of involvement in terrorism, and would have to wait until they had a reasonable suspicion of a particular offence. By that time it may be too late to prevent acts of terrorism occurring. The prevention of terrorism is a prime aim of the Bill.
Furthermore, if the Bill is not enacted in time, not only would the people currently excluded under the 1984 Act be able to enter Great Britain or Northern Ireland freely, but


there would be no power for the Secretary of State to exclude anybody now thought to be involved in acts of Northern Irish terrorism. Active terrorists could move freely about the country to prepare and commit further atrocities. Moreover, if the current powers of proscription were lost, the IRA could parade through the streets of Britain, recruit members openly, and even raise funds in public. There would thus be severe consequences, if the Bill were to fall behind its timetable.
The constraint on time for the Bill means that it must finish its passage through this House by the end of this month, so as to allow another place a proper amount of time for its consideration of the Bill. I recognise that this is a tight timetable, but nevertheless it was originally possible through the usual channels to negotiate an agreement on how the Bill should be discussed in Committee. The latest confirmation of the agreement was made through the usual channels on the morning of 10 January, but during the afternoon sitting of the Committee the Opposition took a different view, giving as the reason the Government's reaction to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Brogan case. That had been announced by the Home Secretary to the Committee more than two weeks previously on 22 December and confirmed by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department in a letter to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on 9 January.
The Brogan judgment was extensively discussed at the sittings following the Christmas recess when my right hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State advised the Committee that there was little prospect of the Government's final response being available before the Bill was through Parliament. That was an honest and realistic appraisal of the position. It was intended to be helpful to the work of the Committee by eliminating any uncertainty about the timing of any proposals we might want to bring forward.
Earlier in Committee, the hon. Member for Huddersfield had referred to the Opposition's aim of keeping to
a schedule that facilitates the timetable of the Bill that we know the Government must meet"—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 22 December 1988, c. 236.]
By 12 January he was saying that the Opposition
could no longer co-operate on a timetable"—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 12 January 1989, c. 439]
and to underline that, was giving the Committee a lengthy homily on airport security, together with an anecdote of how he once wind-surfed from Majorca to France. Since then there have been extensive discussions through the usual channels and I shall listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) to see whether the Opposition find that they can co-operate with the Government on this timetable motion. I very much hope that we shall be able to agree to it without a Division.
So small a margin for flexibility, however, remains with this Bill, that I still consider the timetable motion vital. As the House will remember, there was a variety of opinions, both for and against the Bill, expressed on Second Reading and a substantial minority of the Opposition voted against it. I have every faith in the word of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, but in view of the formidable delaying powers of his hon. Friend the Member for

Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), which we witnessed recently, I should sleep more easily if I had the insurance policy of a timetable for this Bill.
The Committee has now sat for about 52 hours and has discussed 25 clauses. There are two clauses remaining, in addition to five new clauses tabled by the Labour party.

Ms. Marjorie Mowlam (Redcar): Will the Leader of the House give way?

Mr. Wakeham: I was about to refer to the hon. Lady and I shall finish what I was to say before she intervenes.
The hon. Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) helpfully stated in Committee that by the time clause 17 had been reached, the meat of the Bill would have been dealt with.

Ms. Mowlam: I would hate the right hon. Gentleman to mislead the House. It is not a question of five new clauses being left to be debated, having been put down by the Opposition. We have debated nearly all of them. Only two new clauses are left, which we could have finished debating if Conservative Members had been prepared to sit late last Thursday. They were not, so we are having to go through all this now. We should blame the inefficiency and incompetence of Conservative Members, rather than hon. Members on the Opposition side of the House.

Mr. Wakeham: That, I think, is a recommendation for the timetable motion, because there is adequate time to discuss those two clauses.
What the hon. Lady said in Committee is now the case, and in view of that I do not think that there can be much exception to the terms of my motion, which would allow another full day, up to 11 pm, in Committee tomorrow, followed by a full day for the remaining stages.
I said that this was not a normal timetable motion. To fail to get the Bill on the statute book by 22 March would leave the country without adequate defences against terrorism. Recent events, from Lockerbie to the discovery of arms and explosives in Battersea, should have convinced hon. Members that our society is still gravely threatened, as much as it was when the Labour party passed the Prevention of Terrorism Acts in 1974 and 1976. To defeat the motion would make it impossible to achieve Royal Assent by the necessary deadline, and would enormously weaken our ability to prevent terrorism. That is simply unacceptable. Therefore, I invite all right hon. and hon. Members to vote to maintain our weapons against those who seek to destroy both our democracy and many of our people, and to join me in the Aye Lobby in support of the motion.

Mr. Frank Dobson: As the Leader of the House has said, this is an extraordinary guillotine motion. It asks us to curtail debate tomorrow on the Committee stage of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill, when that Committee stage would have ended last Thursday if only the Government had let it. I suggest that it is a case of closing the stable door to stop the horse from getting into the stable.
Of course, the guillotine motion does not stop there. It is designed to curtail debate on Report and Third Reading, so that the Act can in operation by 22 March when the existing law expires. I am afraid that, if the Leader of the House is bothered about the tight timetable that he faces and wants to find a culprit, he need look no further than


have known since 1984 that the existing law would run out on 22 March this year. They could have introduced the Bill in the last Session. After all, there was plenty of time: the last Session dealt with fewer Government Bills than the first Session of any Parliament since the war.
But the Government did not bother. Instead, they decided to introduce the Bill in this Session. That did not leave much time for it to be considered properly because the Session started so late, the Queen's Speech being one of the latest on record. That was because the previous Session dragged on for far longer than usual—despite, as I have said, being faced with the smallest amount of legislation on record. It was the Government who gave themselves so little time to get the Bill through all its stages.
The problem has been made much worse by the Government's own failure to decide how to respond to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Brogan case. The court decided that part of the present law that we are being asked to re-enact is contrary to the European convention on human rights—that is, that this country is breaking the law. Admittedly, that judgment was made just before the present Bill was published, but the Commission had held the present position to be incompatible with the European convention as long ago as May 1987.

Mr. Tony Marlow: The hon. Gentleman has made an important point, and I am making a genuine inquiry. He said that if we did not abide by a recommendation by the European Court of Human Rights we were breaking the law. What law are we breaking? Do we not make the laws ourselves here?

Mr. Dobson: Yes, and one of the laws that we have undertaken is to obey and fall in line with the European convention on human rights. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, we have. That is why, if we are not going to do so, we need to derogate formally from it. But the Government appear to do no contingency planning. They seem to have ignored the likelihood of the court upholding the Commission's views, because the records of—admittedly—successive British Governments before the European Court of Human Rights is that we lose more cases than we win. The Government even ignored the promptings of Lord Colville of Culross, when he reported to them in December 1987 on the working of the Act. He suggested that the Government, in preparing the new Bill, should take into account what he mildly described as the possibility of the court upholding the opinion of the Commission.
The Government appear to have done nothing of the sort. Instead, the court's decision seems to have taken them by surprise. On Second Reading, the Home Secretary said that he would give the Government's response to the court's decision before the Bill left the Commons. He indicated that the Government's proposals would be in time to be debated in Committee. He then went to the Committee and said that Britain would derogate from the court decision—that is, not comply with it—until he had managed to sort out some solution. After Christmas it was made clear that derogation would prevail for longer than had been originally indicated.
Therefore, today, when the Government are seeking to curtail further debate on the Bill, we do not know what the Government are asking the House to do. Are they saying, "Pass the Bill as it is and then, after it becomes law, we will amend it to comply with the European court ruling", or, on the other hand, are they saying, "Pass the Bill as it is, because we have no intention of complying with the court ruling"? We know, however, that the Government propose to curtail debate on either alternative. Any suggestion that a slight extension of this guillotine motion today might permit the necessary discussion seems to us to be absurd. If we are to obtain from the Government a proposition that might meet the requirements of the European court ruling, it certainly merits longer discussion than would be provided for under this guillotine motion.
We say, too, that for the Government to derogate from the court ruling is a most serious development. To do so, the Government must claim to the Council of Europe that the present situation in this country was
a public emergency threatening the life of the nation"—an emergency akin to a time of war.
Whatever is the situation in Northern Ireland, to assert that the IRA or any other of the terrorist groups pose a threat to the life of this nation as a whole is to attribute to those murdering psychopaths a significance that they do not deserve, but in which they themselves revel. It would accord to those who shoot to kill and bomb to maim a status that their actions alone will never achieve—a threat to the life of this nation. Their bombing does not do that. A mature democracy, which has survived far worse dangers than any posed by the IRA, can surely survive what it is threatening.

Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman is giving a lot of importance to the European Court of Human Rights. Will the hon. Gentleman say how the goings on in that court can be the laws of this land? At what stage did Parliament enact anything that obliges us to follow that? When have Members of Parliament debated it? How is it part of the law of this country? When was the country consulted as to whether we should be obliged to follow those particular—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Ask the Prime Minister. She decided that.

Mr. Dobson: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to obtain the details, he had better rush off to the Library. This country has undertaken to abide by the European convention on human rights. If we do not accept that court ruling, we shall have formally to say that we are not complying with it. The hon. Gentleman may not like that situation, but that is the situation which prevails.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: It might be as well to recognise at this stage that a British Government played a central role in setting up the European Court of Human Rights. Not only that, they played a central role in drawing up the European convention under which it has been found that this Government are guilty, because of the way in which they are detaining people.

Mr. Dobson: It has always been my understanding that it was a great source of pride that this country was the first signatory to the European convention on human rights, which is all the more reason for us to attempt to uphold it at all times.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that, when we enter into international agreements. they are invariably done under preogative power. By and large, both sides of the House have accepted the right of the Executive to enter into those agreements on behalf of the nation as a whole. Therefore, when they are entered into, the House wants to support them. It is right that the House could take it back, but, by and large, we thought that this was a proper area into which executive government, on behalf of us all, could enter.

Mr. Dobson: I thank the hon. Member (Mr. Shepherd) for his assistance.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if the proposition of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) is correct, we should have incorporated the European convention into our municipal law? In those circumstances it would have served to bind this country and all persons within it until Parliament took a decision to make a change. As we have maintained that convention as an international treaty only, it is open to Her Majesty's Government to derogate from it, and there is nothing disgraceful in so doing.

Mr. Dobson: The European convention on human rights specifically provides for the "high contracting parties", the Governments who have signed it, to derogate from it if they wish, but I shall consider the significance of that in a moment.
The issue of derogation brings me to the difference between our response to terrorism and that of the Government. Everybody recognises that everyone has a duty to prevent terrorists securing their objectives. It is from that desire to deny terrorists their objectives, however, that our dilemma, in a democratic country, stems. Shootings or explosions may be the immediate object of a terrorist attack, but that is not the end of the story. The death or destruction directly caused by a terrorist is not an end in itself, it is a means to an end. What the terrorist wants to do against a democratic society is to bring about a reaction from those in authority which reduces the openness of that society, undermines its normal democratic values and casts doubt on its normal Judicial processes.
The terrorist also seeks a form of prestige—the prestige of being acknowledged as an extremely dangerous threat. We must bear in mind those long-term objectives of terrorists when we decide how to respond to their acts. Whatever benefits the supporters of the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 claim for it, there is no doubt that that law reduces the openness of our society and undermines our normal democratic procedures.
To announce to the world that the very life of our nation is at risk certainly accords the IRA and other groups the loathsome privilege of being acknowledged as a very dangerous threat. We believe that that is too high a price to pay. We also believe that, although our democratic instruments and institutions may inhibit our ability, as a country, to take direct, immediate and deadly action against terrorists, they are also a strength and a source of national pride. I remind the House, as I have done before, that although dictatorships have been undermined by terrorist methods in modern times, no

democracy has fallen to terrorists. The strength of democracies may be less apparent, but they are deeper and more lasting.
Although we support the new proposals aimed to reduce the funds to which terrorists have access, we oppose the rest of the Bill. Its provisions for detention breach the European convention on human rights. They invade civil liberties and alienate large numbers of otherwise law-abiding people. The exclusion provisions amount to a system of internal exile, which Lord Colville, in his review of the workings of the Act, felt did more harm than good.
The right of the Executive to bar people from a part of their country without judicial interference bears an uncanny resemblance to provisions in countries whose human rights records are rightly criticised by both sides of the House. My objections, however, go further than that. The situation in Northern Ireland poses terrible problems for the people living there, for the people of England, Scotland and Wales, for the Government, for the police and security forces and for the institutions of democracy.
Individual measures which may seem justified in response to the threat of terrorism can, taken together, amount to a threat to our democratic institutions. Our sensitivity to incursions against our liberties becomes literally calloused by the repetition of horrifying events and our responses to them. We become used to things that, 20 years ago, were unthinkable anywhere in this land—trials without juries, detention for seven days without redress, internal exile, the abolition of the right to silence, newspapers supporting the shooting of unarmed people and even the Prime Minister announcing that suspects are guilty. Each of those is an understandable response to the horrors of terrorism, but taken together they amount to an erosion of all that our country has fought and argued for throughout the 20th century.
What is more important—I address this remark to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton)—they damage our reputation abroad in a way which makes the fight against terrorism harder. Whatever one's point of view on the merits of the Patrick Ryan case, it demonstrated our dependence on the Governments of other countries. It demonstrated that our reputation for good or ill affects their judgments and their willingness to co-operate with us. Clearly, the maintenance of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and a permanent derogation from the provisions of the European convention of human rights will undermine and add doubts to the willingness of other European Governments to assist us in the fight against terrorism.

Mr. David Sumberg: Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether, when the Labour party was in power, it ever derogated from the European convention on human rights, if it did so, why and in what circumstances?

Mr. Dobson: Various Governments, including Labour Governments, have done so in the past. The hon. Gentleman appears not to know that the derogation has never applied to England, Scotland or Wales. In some cases it applied to Northern Ireland and in previous cases to colonial territories during states of emergency. The hon. Gentleman should bear that in mind.
If I lived in Northern Ireland, I might think that what is happening there was a threat to the life of that part of the nation, but the Opposition believe that the threats or


the actions of the IRA ought not to be portrayed to its advantage as a threat to the life of the nation. That is why we believe that, on balance, the provisions of the Bill will do more harm than good. That is why we oppose the Bill and the guillotine.

Mr. David Sumberg: I shall support the motion as briefly as I can. Strictly speaking, this afternoon we are debating what we know formally as the timetable motion, but which most of us call the guillotine motion. It is an odd title. When I was talking to some of the more Right-wing members of my constituency party during the weekend and I told them that I had to get back to London promptly to speak in support of the guillotine in the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, the reaction of a constituent who is not particularly supportive of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary in these matters was, "At last the Government have got it right in dealing with the affairs of Northern Ireland."
The debate is important in itself and for the attitudes, beliefs and feelings which it exposes in the Opposition. Despite all the images that they present on television, the Opposition remain the party of the past. Rather like the Bourbon kings and queens, they have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing. I enjoyed tremendously the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) making it absolutely clear to the House that the Opposition totally oppose the Bill.
The Labour party proclaims in ringing tones that it wants to defeat the evil of terrorism, yet it consistently opposes, fights and rejects the very measures which have a chance of doing just that. Labour Members resent it tremendously—as they did in Committee—when we justifiably remind them that back in the 1970s a Labour Government, supported by what was then a loyal Conservative Opposition, first enacted an anti-terrorism Bill. The Opposition's reaction then was in marked contrast to their reaction today. Their reaction now is irresponsible. They believe in freedom of opposition. Long may the Labour party adopt that policy of irresponsibility and freedom of opposition. It says that there is no need for measures such as this, yet it fails to accept that, sadly, in the last 10 years terrorism has got worse, not better.
It is extraordinary that the shadow Leader of the House should have said that derogation is acceptable in relation to Northern Ireland-at least, it was acceptable when the Labour party was in power; I do not know whether that applies today to Northern Ireland—but that derogation is unacceptable for the whole of the United Kingdom. The United Kingdom as a whole faces a terrorism threat. I do not need to set out at length all the incidents that support that contention. Although Northern Ireland faces a far worse threat, sadly the mainland is not immune from it.
Sensible members of the Labour party abhor the men of violence, yet there is a sizeable minority within its ranks who welcome representatives of the men of violence into their midst and give them tacit support. What are we in this House and, more important, what are people outside it to make of the fact that a Bill such as this is in this position today? The Bill ought to have all-party support and it ought to be warmly welcomed by the Labour party. I suggest that the Labour party of 20 years ago would have

given it a warm welcome. The usual channels should have been able to agree a fixed and reasonable timetable for procedure. If that would have happened 20 years ago, what is the reason for the extraordinary situation in which we find ourselves? The Bill is designed to fight terrorism and it ought to command all-party support. It would have attracted all-party support in the United States of America and in most parts of continental Europe.
The Government had to act and table this motion. To be fair to the Opposition, they gave the Government due warning of what they intended to do and how they intended to behave. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) who led for the Opposition in Committee may find this a rare and unusual occurrence, but sometimes the words that he uses are taken seriously on the Government Benches. He made it clear to the Government that any co-operation on the Bill had vanished, following the statement to the Committee by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 22 December 1988 in relation to the Brogan case.
After my right hon. Friend had made his statement on the Brogan case, the hon. Member for Huddersfield said:
This has been a truly co-operative Committee.
He was right about that. He continued:
We have worked exceedingly well on a proper scrutiny of the Bill and have kept to a schedule that facilitates the timetable of the Bill that we know the Government must meet.
That is an interesting statement. Up to 22 December the Opposition had agreed, through the usual channels, a timetable to which they had kept. They were aware that the Government were under pressure, because of the timetable to which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House referred, to get it through. The hon. Member for Huddersfield then said:
What a mess this statement has left us in…How can we carry on in the spirit of co-operation, faced with the great difficulties with which the Home Secretary has presented us? …We shall have
he said, in a meaning and threatening tone—
a very different attitude to the Bill when we return on 10 January."—[[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 22 December 1988; c. 236.]
The hon. Gentleman and those of his hon. Friends who support him are men and women of honour and they keep their word. They were as good as their word. When we returned to the House after turkey and plum pudding they adopted a very different attitude to the Bill. Acting, I am told, under the orders of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) they embarked on guerrilla tactics, the aim of which was merely to delay. As my hon. Friend the Government Whip, the hon. Member for Lincoln (Mr. Carlisle) would testify, had he not been sworn to silence, the Opposition were unable and unwilling to agree on how the Committee should proceed in an orderly and proper fashion in its examination of this most important Bill.

Ms. Mowlam: Ought not the hon. Gentleman to tell the House that on 12 January the Government introduced a new clause and 14 amendments, which meant that the Committee had to discuss new material that Opposition Members, without a body of civil servants to help them, had to go through? If the hon. Gentleman is to paint a true picture of what happened, could we please have all the facts?

Mr. Sumberg: I accept that what the hon. Lady says is true. However, the reports of the Committee debates show


what tactics were adopted by Opposition Members. Moreover, the statement of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, to which I have already referred, is on the record.
The Opposition said at first that they would co-operate, even though they did not like the Bill very much. Then they were at sixes and sevens; they did not know whether to proceed quickly, slowly or not at all. All hon. Members who serve on the Committee know that to be true. Opposition Members may have been working according to the directions and instructions of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. I make no criticism of that. He is responsible for the Labour party's policy on home affairs. It is right that he should have some influence on how the Committee behaves and the tactics that Opposition Members adopt in Committee.
If that is what the right hon. Gentleman told them to do, and if they accepted his instructions, I think that the Labour party has taken leave of its senses. What better evidence does one give one's political opponents that one is not serious, that one does not recognise the urgency and that one has failed to be in touch with public opinion than that which one gives on terrorism? What better evidence can one give than to play—to quote the words of the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Mr. Waldegrave) on another matter—"clever silly" in relation to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill? That is the evidence that some of my hon. Friends require about the motives of the Labour party.
During one of those late evenings when sleep was difficult because of the charms and eloquence of some Opposition Members, I chanced to read an article in The Times when I was looking for an explanation of this extraordinary behaviour by Opposition Members, particularly that of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. The article was by a former close colleague of Opposition Members. During his time in this House he took a close interest in home affairs. I refer to Kilroy, as he is now known—Robert Kilroy-Silk. When I read his article in The Times on 6 January it satisfied me as to why we are here this afternoon.
I shall read out part of the article. It gives the reason as to why we are debating this motion today. The article is headed
One of the Paler Shadows".
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is not here. An hon. Member: "He is having his tea." He will read Hansard, anyway.
The article continues:
Where has the shadow Home Secretary been hiding himself for the past few months? Who is the shadow Home Secretary? No, that is not a sarcastic or a rhetorical question, or at least it was neither what I asked it of myself at the beginning of this week.
For a brief but disturbing moment I could not recall the name or face of the incumbent of that august office…My temporary lapse of memory was occasioned by the fact that it is difficult to think of anything of note that Labour's shadow Home Secretary has said or done recently on home affairs.

Mr. Richard Holt: Does my hon. Friend agree that about the only pronouncement that we have heard from the right hon. Gentleman was on football identity cards? Again, he is 100 per cent. out of tune with the British public.

Mr. Sumberg: I quite agree.
The article was written on 6 January, and the right hon. Gentleman has since made his statement. He is right out of tune with the British public. To be fair to the right hon. Gentleman, he spoke on the case of Mr. Viraj Mendts, a case of great interest to many of my constituents.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: He was out of touch again.

Mr. Sumberg: My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman) makes the point that he was out of touch with the vast majority of people. He was certainly out of touch with the vast majority of my constituents, many of whom work in the city of Manchester and pay rates there.
The article—it is by Robert Kilroy-Silk, not me—concludes with the words:
The fact that I had to pose the question to myself is in itself an indication of his failure to make an impact.
We have the answer there. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook made an impact today, and so did other Opposition Members, by allowing us to get into the situation in which a guillotine motion must be proposed. [Interruption.] Some Opposition Members are here. I see the former Solicitor-General the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). He makes up in quality what the Opposition lack in numbers.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook and many other Opposition Members have made an impact, but not in the way that they probably would have wanted. They made an impact by saying to the House and to the British people that saving the face of the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, proving Kilroy wrong rather than right, and justifying the right hon. Gentleman's virility is more important than making sure that the country has weapons to defeat the bomber and the gunman.
When we debated the matter in Committee, certain Opposition Members, no doubt sincerely—the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) was one of them—and with some credibility argued that terrorism could never be defeated, that we had to learn to live with it, that we have always had it, and that we have to do our best to contain it. I am not prepared to accept that view and neither, I hope, is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Whatever is required, a civilised society must prevail. It will not be easy to defeat the terrorist.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: Although it is difficult to defeat terrorism, the only way it will be defeated is if terrorists believe that, despite the means that terrorists deploy, no Government will ever grant them their political objectives. As long as the Opposition show a lack of firmness of purpose, as they are doing today, they will give hope to terrorists and make it more difficult for us to defeat them.

Mr. Sumberg: My hon. Friend is quite right. Many times in Committee we asked the Opposition how they proposed to deal with terrorists. They answered by saying that they are perfectly satisfied that the ordinary criminal law is sufficient to deal with terrorists. In the light of their record, that is an extraordinary statement. It bears no relation to the reality in Northern Ireland or in the rest of the United Kingdom. Opposition Members recognise that, in 1974—certainly during their period of office—there was a need for specific anti-terrorist measures. It is a reflection on the change in the Labour party and the pressures that have caused that change that the Opposition now feel politically unable to say to the Government, "We accept


that there is a need for a specific measure against terrorism. Okay, there are certain points in the legislation with which we do not agree and which we want changed, but, in principle, we see the need to deal with a specific situation." They say that the ordinary law is sufficient and that we should try to deal with terrorism on that basis.
Opposition Members should say that to the people of Northern Ireland. They should say that to the people who have suffered from terrorism in this country. They should tell people who have lost friends and relatives that the ordinary law is sufficient. I only wish it were. If it were sufficient, we would not have to spend time this afternoon and all the time that we spent in Committee debating the issue. If we have determination, we can defeat terrorism. We must provide the means. We must give the forces of law and order the means to tackle and combat the men of violence.

Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Gentleman's face is new to me in this kind of debate. I have been here all the years since terrorism first occurred. I remember every Minister, including a previous right hon. Member for Barnsley who is now a lord, telling me how we were destroying terrorism and that we were winning. I argued that the idea was utter nonsense and that terrorism would continue for many years.
The hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) speaks with the attitude that we will conquer terrorism and that it is easy to conquer it if only the Prevention of Terrorism Bill is enacted. Hon. Members who have never taken part in such a debate before are giving the House guidance about how to do it. The hon. Gentleman should wake up. The matter is far more serious than that. It will go on for a long time due, to some extent, to the kind of nonsense that I have been hearing from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Sumberg: I rather regret giving way. The hon. Gentleman plainly was not listening to what I said.

Mr. Flannery: Yes I was.

Mr. Sumberg: Then he did not listen well enough. I said clearly that the fight against terrorism is difficult. It will not be easy to win through. If the hon. Gentleman did not hear me the first time, I hope he heard me the second time. If the hon. Gentleman reads Hansard, he will find that I said that. In any event, it will not be easy to win through, but it will be much harder if we follow the Opposition's policies. We would have no chance at all.
Opposition Members take the view that all is hunky-dory in the garden, that there is no need to do anything, that we can rely on the general criminal law, that we are just dealing with a group of rather horrible people, and that, somehow or other, sweetness and light will prevail. The public do not believe that. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) should talk to his constituents. He will find that they are 100 per cent. behind what the Government ae doing. They want us to succeed with the measure. They find it extraordinary that the Opposition should not have co-operated with us in Committee and this afternoon. If the matter goes to a vote and the Government win, we shall press ahead with the

Bill. The Opposition will rue the day they showed themselves not to be supporters of the Bill but the tacit friends of the gunman and the bomber.

Mr. Peter Archer: Not for the first time, the Government have introduced us to "Alice in Wonderland". Hon. Members may remember the debate in that story about executing the Cheshire cat. The king's argument was that anything that had a head could be beheaded. The executioner's argument was that a head could not be cut off unless there was a body from which to cut it. Even as a small child I found the executioner's argument more persuasive.
This is precisely what we are discussing this afternoon; it is the issue which the Government have raised. A guillotine is an instrument for separating one thing from another. In the context of Committee proceedings, it is to separate those parts of the proceedings which may be discussed from the parts that will not be discussed. There is no sense or meaning in a guillotine which relates to discussions that have already been completed. One cannot cut off the completed portion of a Committee's proceedings unless there is an uncompleted portion from which to separate it.
It is true that this motion deals with the remaining stages of the Bill, and it is proposed to allot one day to the whole of the remaining stages. That is disgraceful, and it cannot possibly appear as anything but running away from the debate. But whatever the appropriate period of time for the remaining stages, that is not a matter on which the Opposition could prevent the Bill from reaching the statute book, because it is wholly within the control of the Government, who decide how many days shall be allocated to it. Usually, that is a matter for business questions.
If it is said that the Committee stage is not quite complete—there remain the two debates about which my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) interjected, selected in the marshalled list—the Government are not chopping off a head: they are clipping toenails. The Committee is to sit tomorrow morning in any event, and those two debates will be disposed of well within the morning. If the Government believe that, for some reason, the Opposition proposed to extend those two debates, I ask where the evidence for that is in the context of anything that has taken place in the Committee.
Of course, the Government say that the Opposition have wasted time. Governments always say that and the Opposition say that they have not. Nothing would be added to that discussion by my denying it this afternoon. I simply ask any right hon. or hon. Member who would like to familiarise himself with the events of the Committee, and who would like to know whether the debate there occupied an inordinate amount of time and whether we invented fanciful suggestions for debate, to obtain a copy of the Committee's proceedings in the Vote Office and preferably read it all. If hon. Members do not have time to read it all, they should take any of our discussions at random and judge whether they were extended artificially, whether time was wasted, or whether we had a perfectly normal, rational debate on matters of genuine concern.
It is true that, at the outset of the Committee, we objected to the Government's bland assumption that when


the Government get themselves into a mess with their legislative programme the solution is always and automatically for the Opposition to behave reasonably, curtail debate and agree a timetable. We do not accept that, because it is not a well-founded constitutional doctrine. It was the Conservative party which complained a few years ago that there was too much legislation and that we needed a rest from it, yet they created this problem by trying to cram too much sausage through the machine last Session, and then again this Session. So we started this Session late. Then they said that the simple solution was for the Opposition to curtail debate and be reasonable and helpful. We said that we did not accept that proposition, but our point was a constitutional one. No one who has read our debates could suggest that we extended them artifically or were unco-operative.
I complain at the travesty of our debates that we heard in the speech of the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg). If anyone accepts his argument, I plead with him to go and read our proceedings. For anyone who has heard or read them that suggestion is a sheer calumny; for anyone who has not, it was a silly and ignorant construction. I have said this before in the Chamber, but I resent the suggestion that we in the Opposition do not care about terrorism and that we take lightly the tragedy, loss and foolhardiness of it all. Some of us have known the victims of terrorism, so when hon. Members suggest that that explains the differences—

Mr. Neil Hamilton: rose—

Mr. Archer: Let me finish.
When hon. Members suggest that this is the explanation of our differences, such suggestions arise purely from their ignorance. If it is not from ignorance, it is from something more sinister.

Mr. Neil Hamilton: I make no imputation against the right hon. and learned Gentleman or the vast majority of his colleagues, or against their firmness of purpose in opposing terrorism I said that their opposition to reasonable Bills such as this is perceived by terrorists as a lack of firmness of purpose, and that is the problem we are discussing.

Mr. Archer: If the hon. Gentleman had been familiar with our debates in Committee, he would have known that a great deal of our time was taken up with what is counter-productive as a means of dealing with terrorism. I know that I would be out of order if I embarked on the subjects that we discussed, and I do not propose to do that. But I resent the suggestion—it may not have come from the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Hamilton), but it has certainly been made by other Conservative Members—that what is at issue with this Bill is whether we are opposed to terrorism.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department who dealt with the Bill in Committee has not suggested that we wasted time or that our discussions were in any way improper. He appeared to be interested in the points we were making; he directed his mind to them and replied to them. We were not always in agreement, but I always understood his replies, which is not true of every Minister of this Government whom I have heard in Committee. We have had no complaints from the Minister that what was said in Committee was in any way inappropriate.
Right until the sitting after dinner on Thursday evening, after the Government announced that they were introducing this motion, we had heard no suggestion—although there had been no agreement about a timetable—that time was being wasted. Then, when the Committee resumed after dinner on Thursday, two things happened which I, at least, failed to predict. First, Conservative Back Benchers became different animals. Until then, although they had participated from time to time in our discussions and had made brief contributions, they had chiefly dealt with their constituency correspondence, wandered in and out of the Committee, and looked through the window. In one case, an hon. Member had brought a Division to a standstill until being shaken awake and told what to say. At that moment, I almost had a conscience about having called a Division, but the Division did not seem to interrupt his slumber, because a few moments later he adopted a somnolent posture and passed the rest of the sitting peacefully. In short, they were behaving exactly as Government Back Benchers are expected to behave in Committee, but after dinner on Thursday evening they began to exhibit an intense interest in our deliberations. They intervened in our contributions and made substantial contributions themselves, to which Ministers rose and replied. It was a real joy; but it was almost as though the Government side of the Committee did not want the business to be concluded.
Then, at 10 pm, the second unpredictable event occurred. We had had a number of late sittings, about which we made no complaint. We appreciated that there was urgency, but there were matters that we genuinely wanted to discuss. However, on the stroke of 10 on Thursday, the Government Whip moved the adjournment of the Committee. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said that there was so little left to discuss that we could easily dispose of it if we sat a little later, but the Government side voted down his proposal.
So it is not open to the Government to say that the business of the Committee was not concluded. It was nearly concluded, and would have been if they had not deliberately prevented it from being so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and, indeed, the Leader of the House have said, we have all taken part many times in guillotine debates and we could rehearse all the usual arguments in our sleep. Normally, our only problem is to remind ourselves of whether we are in government: or opposition so that we do not transpose the arguments.
But this debate is unique. The usual arguments are simply not applicable. The Government cannot say that we are bringing business to a standstill and preventing vital legislation reaching the statute book because there is nothing left in Committee for the Opposition to prevent. We, the Opposition, cannot say that the Government are ignoring the rights of the House and inhibiting free speech, because there is virtually nothing left for us to say. If Lewis Carroll had thought of that far-fetched situation, I have no doubt that it too would have been in "Alice in Wonderland".
The Opposition should resist the motion, first, because although it makes provision, it makes disgustingly inadequate provision for the remaining stages. In other situations, we would have had to say this in business questions, but, as it is, that seems a good reason for


resisting the motion. Secondly, we should resist it because the House should not encourage pointless and unnecessary motions.
It only remains to ask, why are the Government doing this? Why should they want to do something that Governments normally resist having to do? Why should they want it to appear that the House is more divided on the principle of the Bill than it really is? Is it true that in this House we have a hobby of ascribing motives to one another. If an hon. Member mentions the state of the weather, we all speculate as to what reason he might have for introducing that subject. Even if he tells us of the reasons, we all ask one another whether those are the real reasons or whether there might be some deeper and more cunning reason.
I have racked my brains, but I cannot conceive of any reason why the Government should want to introduce this motion—

Mr. Michael Foot: Fake publicity.

Mr. Archer: Well, my right hon. Friend has made one suggestion and perhaps we could all put forward our own suggestions, but I can think of no reason, commendable, disgraceful, or morally neutral. On Thursday evening I found myself wondering whether we had entered some Kafkaesque situation in which the inhabitants of the lunatic asylums take over and the people are governed by lunatics. That would explain a number of things that have happened in the House in recent months.
There is one other possibility, which is found back in "Alice in Wonderland." I have reminded the House of the king's argument and of the executioner's argument. The queen's argument was that if something was not done at once, she would have everybody executed. That was not the most logical contribution, but it was the most effective in concentrating people's minds. I take leave to wonder whether the "Queen of Hearts" has let it be known to her Ministers that they must be seen to be energetic and effective; that they must stand no nonsense and flex their muscles to let everybody see who is boss. I wonder whether they are demonstrating their macho response by introducing a guillotine motion every time there is a debate. I see only those two possible suggestions. I still have not heard a third.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I congratulate the hon. Member for Warley, South—[Interruption.] I am sorry, I congratulate the hon. Member for Warley, West—[Interruption.] I shall start again, I congratulate the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). However, like his hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), he has put a huge smokescreen over what has happened in order to apologise for the activities of the Labour party. The public will not see this matter the same way. Therefore, it is for myself and my hon. Friends to expose the activities and the cavalier attitude towards the safety of the public of the Labour Opposition in relation to their dealings with the Prevention of Terrorism Bill in Committee.

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hind: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my point, I shall then allow him to intervene.
The timetable motion has been forced upon the Government. There was no choice in the matter. That decision was forced on the Government by the Opposition, not by anybody else. As a member of the Committee, I was aware, as were all my colleagues, that there was an understanding between the Government and the Opposition that Committee consideration of the Bill would be finished by 19 January so that it could come back to the House for Report and Third Reading and then go to the House of Lords. That was because, if we did not complete our consideration of the Bill by 23 March, there would be no Royal Assent; the existing temporary provisions legislation would expire and the public would have no protection from terrorism in terms of the special powers that the Bill provides and neither would the police have the special tools that are specifically given to them by the House to deal with terrorism. That is what was at stake and that is what is at stake in this debate on the so-called guillotine motion.
It has been argued that the Opposition have said that the Government have reneged on the agreement because of the decision of the European court of human rights. In considering that position, we should remember that no extra Committee time was spent on the court decision because my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department made it clear that they were considering the matter.
What we are facing—it is the most important thing in the days after the accident at Lockerbie, after Enniskillen and the Battersea bomb factory—is the fact that without the Bill there is no protection against terrorism. That is what people outside the House must realise. They should also realise that the party that forced the guillotine did not support the Bill on Second Reading. It supported part of it and many Opposition Members voted against it. Indeed, two Opposition Members felt so strongly that they resigned from their Front Bench. The fact is that the Labour party today is against any legislation that gives power to deal with terrorists. That is what is at the root of this and that is what the public outside must realise.
I have two major points to make about the Bill. First, it does not deal only with terrorism in Northern Ireland. That is something that we all forget. The original 1974 legislation was indeed designed to deal with that problem, but today we are not just dealing with terrorism in Northern Ireland. The attempt to bomb an E1 A1 jet at Heathrow airport illustrates that. We have seen international terrorists kill diplomats on the streets of London and we have seen WPC Yvonne Fletcher shot down on duty by a terrorist from the Libyan embassy in London—

Mr. Dobson: rose—

Mr. Hind: We have seen the recent Lockerbie explosion—

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hind: I shall give way in a moment if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish.
We have seen a jet blown out of the sky at Lockerbie. Those acts were carried out by international terrorists. Those are the situations to which we, as Members of


Parliament, must apply our minds in order to provide protection for the general public in this country. We are not just talking about Ireland because the Bill has other major facets.

Mr. Dobson: When the hon. Gentleman talks about the shooting of WPC Fletcher, is he suggesting that the prevention of terrorism legislation did or did not work in her case? What I remember—and bitterly as a London Member of Parliament—is that I protested immediately the Libyans announced that they were going to use the so-called Libyan people's bureau as a base from which to pursue the enemies of the Gaddafi regime. I demanded that the British Government close it and throw them out, but for years the Government took no action. It was as a result of that failure to act that WPC Fletcher was shot from the window. What is more, this Government, who say that they do not deal with terrorism or talk to terrorists, negotiated with the Libyans about how they should leave this country. Finally to add insult to injury, the Metropolitan police were forced to carry out the humiliating task of providing their colleague's murderer with safe conduct from this country. We shall take no lessons from Conservative Members about how to fight terrorism, because they have nothing to teach us.

Mr. Hind: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says. I did not remember his protest about that, because he protests about so much.
If the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1984 had been in force and the Government had taken the hon. Gentleman's advice it would have been of use. If he thinks carefully he will realise that the Act would have been important in that case. The people in the embassy had diplomatic status and that enabled them to leave. Because of the international conventions on diplomacy, the Government were not allowed to touch them. The hon. Gentleman knows that Conservative Members felt as strongly about that as he did. We had no control over the situation, which was forced on us by international agreements.
We are dealing with an international situation. On the streets of our country there are trained terrorists, many of whom have been trained in the middle east by the Libyans, the Syrians and Palestinian groups. Many of them are learning to counter the techniques of interrogation, and the Bill will at least give the police some of the tools that they need to get round that problem.
No doubt some of my hon. Friends who served on the Committee will remember the arguments advanced about security checks at airports. Those checks are currently being carried out at Heathrow and Gatwick and at all our airports to protect people using American airlines to fly to the United States and back. They are to counter the threat about a plane from Frankfurt being bombed which resulted in the Lockerbie air disaster. The powers to carry out those checks are contained in the Bill. Are the Opposition saying that those checks are not necessary? If they are necessary, how are they to be carried out if the Opposition prevent the Bill from becoming law?
What will the Opposition say to the relatives of those who may die as a result of proper checks not being carried out because the police or the security services did not have the powers contained in the Bill? I am sure that the Opposition would not be very happy if they were put in that position. That points to the need for the Bill. We must

also be mindful of the planes that fly from London and from all over the world to Belfast. Surely people flying in and out of Ulster are entitled to the protection of the special provisions contained in this Bill and in others and which allow for the searching of baggage and checks for bombs and weapons. They also allow for the detention for 12 hours of suspected terrorists, people who may not be able properly to account for their activities.
These are important protections not only for the people on the United Kingdom mainland but for those citizens of the United Kingdom who live in Northern Ireland. Those matters were forgotten by the Opposition when they filibustered on the Committee. Let us deal with the Irish situation. Today the Irish terrorist is far more professional than he was in the past. I learned a great deal in Committee by listening to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) who told us much about first-hand dealings with terrorists. It was quite frightening to hear that, especially after incidents such as the one at Eniskillen. Many of these terrorists are trained by the Red Brigades and Baader-Meinhof and middle eastern terrorist groups and they come to Ulster to do their worst. We must prevent them from doing their worst on the mainland.
As an English Member, I have a duty to my constituents to ensure that they are safe. That can be achieved through the exclusion orders in the Bill. Their purpose is to keep known terrorists who are in Northern Ireland away from the mainland, to prevent them from running a bombing campaign in the rest of the United Kingdom. Most of them are at large only because of the intimidation of witnesses in Northern Ireland. Nobody will come forward to give evidence against terrorists in the courts so that they can be properly convicted because the families of potential witnesses will live in fear.
Typically and laughably, the Opposition pray in aid the Brogan case decided at the European Court of Human Rights. That case involved five known terrorists with convictions, typical of this situation, who were excluded by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary from the United Kingdom. Nobody can tell me, and I am sure that nobody can tell the public, that those exclusion orders were not necessary. We have only to look at the Battersea bomb factory to see that. In that case terrorists were arrested, but some are still at large in London. The police suspect that bombs with long fuses, similar to the one at the Grand hotel in Brighton, are ticking away waiting to go off. We need to find the people who planted those and nobody can tell me that the Bill is not necessary to help root them out.
The Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act prevented a seaside bombing campaign in the United Kingdom and was used some months ago to prevent the assassination outside his home of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In the Grand hotel explosion some of my colleagues and I saw the building virtually falling around us as an IRA bomber attempted to wipe out the whole Government in one go. Are the Opposition saying that the tools of detection and prevention of terrorism are not necessary in such cases?

Mr. Archer: If we are to take seriously the hon. Gentleman's contribution on this subject, will he tell us whether he really thinks that the Brogan case had something to do with exclusion orders? Has he even read it?

Mr. Hind: I have already spoken about the situation in relation to that. I cited the people in that case as typical of the sort of people that we know about and for whom exclusion orders are used. Given that situation, I am happy, as I am sure many of my hon. Friends are, about the existence of exclusion orders. One has only to look at bombings in London and at bombings at military establishments and at the Brighton case, which is typical, to see that such measures are necessary.
I now turn to the European Court of Human Rights case about Brogan and others. Because of the case put forward in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary it was not necessary to spend much time dealing with the Brogan case. The Government clearly told the Committee that they would have wide consultations about judicial supervision in the case of suspected terrorists who were detained for seven days. They needed to consult the judiciary in Northern Ireland and in Scotland, England and Wales. They also needed to consult three Government Departments and the matter had to be considered in detail. No extra time was used in dealing with that matter. The Opposition cannot pray in aid the Brogan case because the decision was made after the Bill was published. The date for the debate was already announced before the European Court of Human Rights deliberated on this matter. In order to come to a proper conclusion, widespread consideration of that decision is important.
It ill becomes members of the Opposition to accuse the Government of derogating from that position. My right hon. Friend had no alternative but to derogate. Had he not, we would have been in contravention of the European court's ruling and his actions would have been illegal. He did what the then Labour Government did, as a result of different factors, in 1974 and 1978. Again, the derogation was the result of action taken under the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act. It ill becomes the shadow Leader of the House to say that the Labour Government derogated only on Northern Ireland. Those 14 or 10 years ago, international terrorism was nowhere near as bad as it is today, so the criteria for dealing with international terrorism were different. I support the derogation.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—I am sure that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) will tell the right hon. Gentleman about this—told us earlier in the year in the debate on the Security Service Bill:
The protection of our liberties is too important to be left to judges."—[Official Report, 16 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 39.]
It seems that the Opposition will use the judges when it suits them. but in this case, as an apology for the position that they have taken on the prevention of terrorism, will say that the judges are a sufficient protection. When the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook comes to the House, we shall have to check to see which face he is wearing.

Mr. Sumberg: Although my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has left the Chamber, no doubt temporarily, he has been here from the beginning of the debate, but the spokesman for the Opposition, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) was here for a few minutes at the beginning and has not been seen since. How are we to take seriously his claim to be the principal spokesman on home affairs?
Has my hon. Friend any idea where the right hon. Gentleman has gone, or when he will be back and whether he will play any part in these proceedings?

Mr. Hind: I do not know where the right hon. Gentleman is, and I do not care either.
A Committee is considering the Bill, and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook is not a member of that Committee. Despite that, Conservative members of the Committee are aware that the right hon. Gentleman's sticky fingers are all over the way in which that Committee has been conducted. That conduct has resulted in the introduction of this guillotine motion. If the agreement to finish on 19 January had been honoured, the public would not have been put in danger and we would not have been forced to truncate the debate on this important Bill. Such behaviour sends out the wrong message to the public. It shows them that the Labour party is soft on terrorism, and its attempts in Committee to water down every strong item of the police's powers to deal with terrorism merely shows both the terrorists and the public that the Opposition are weak on terrorism and that they are likely to be the terrorists' friends.

Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hind: No, I will not.

Mr. Dobson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to refer to any hon. Member as the terrorists' friend?

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): I doubt that the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) has implied that. If he has, I am sure that he will withdraw it.

Mr. Hind: I will certainly withdraw it. The point that I was making was that the Opposition's actions will be interpreted outside in that fashion. I know many Labour Members and I am sure that that is not so. I am saying that the wrong message is being sent out to the British public by Labour Members.

Mr. Holt: My hon. Friend may not wish to retract too conclusively his statement about terrorist supporters on the Opposition Benches, when he remembers the activities of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).

Mr. Barry Sheerman: That must be retracted.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that, on reflection, the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) will find that statement as offensive as the Chair does, and will retract it.

Mr. Holt: I find nothing that I have said about the hon. Member for Brent, East offensive.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is unacceptable to the Chair and to the House for hon. Members to refer to other hon. Members as a terrorist's friend. I hope that the hon. Member for Langbaurgh will reflect on what he said and will make an apology.

Mr. Holt: I will apologise to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and if you rule that what I said was an unparliamentary remark, I will withdraw that and allow the public to choose.

Mr. Hind: When all is considered and the public look at the Bill in the light of what has happened in the Committee, they will note that on Second Reading the Opposition abstained, and many Opposition Members voted against the Bill. Opposition Front Bench spokesmen have said that they support only that part of the Bill that deprives of their funds the bankers and financiers of terrorism. Those who are so cavalier in their attitude to the safety of the British public cannot be regarded as capable of forming a credible Government. I am sure that that will be reflected in the attitude of the British public in future elections.
The British public are entitled to be protected from terrorism, and the Government will provide that protection, and have accepted their duty by truncating the debates on the Bill. After Lockerbie, Enniskillen and many other horrors, the British public will not understand the stance of the Opposition.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: It is not altogether clear why the Government have thought fit to introduce the guillotine motion. Had they provided as much time for the later stages of the Bill as for the debate this afternoon, there might have been a perfectly adequate amount of time for consideration of these matters.
I come to the debate with no axe to grind, because the third parties have been largely excluded from the debate. The Committee is not graced by the presence of any of my right hon. or hon. Friends and we would wish to consider, at a later stage of the proceedings, a number of the extremely important matters—some of them new—that the Bill contains. Therefore, we are extremely resentful of the Government's decision to truncate the Report stage and Third Reading and to squash them into a single day. This is a contemptible procedure, and one that we cannot possibly support.
I need not re-emphasise the view of the Democrats that the Bill is necessary, as I made that clear on Second Reading. The Government must have their legislation on the statute book by 21 March, the date when the Act ceases to have effect. The official Opposition appear to be divided about whether the Bill is necessary. The speech of the shadow Leader of the House suggested that the Labour party is opposed to the Bill, and may be opposing the timetable motion in part because of that, but that is not part of our argument.
Our view is that the substance of the Bill has changed since Second Reading. This is the last time, probably for quite some time, that the House will have the opportunity to debate these exceptional provisions, which are required to defeat terrorism. Although it will be necessary, if the Bill is enacted, to re-enact its provisions by affirmative resolution, that will give us the opportunity only to reject or accept the Government's case for the legislation in total, or to respond as the Government give the lead. We shall not have the opportunity to change the content of the legislation by amendment, save where the Government decide to lay such amended revisions before us. This is exceedingly important legislation, and although we are persuaded that it is broadly acceptable, we should have time to test its provisions in full on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: I am confused by what the hon. Gentleman said. I appreciate the fact that he believes in the importance of

this measure and that it has to complete the parliamentary process by a certain date. However, I am not entirely certain whether the hon. Gentleman resents it being dealt with on the Floor of the House as at present, or whether he would prefer it to be discussed at greater length in a Committee of which neither he nor I am a member and to which, therefore, we could not contribute.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman's intervention was entirely academic, as the Bill has practically completed its Committee Stage. The Leader of the House has made no serious complaint about the way the Bill was debated in Committee. Any objective observer taking the trouble to read the proceedings of the Committee would find that the Bill kept up with the timetable initially announced by the Government.
There was a hiccup when the Government announced that they did not intend to address the question whether a substantive change in the law should be made in response to the finding of the European Court of Human Rights. In that may lie the explanation that the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) was seeking, of why the Government have introduced this otherwise wholly unnecessary guillotine.
It is worth recalling the history of the Brogan case because of its impact on the discussions on the Bill. The Home Secretary gave the House to understand in his announcement of 22 December, that, under article 15, he was embarking on a temporary derogation from the provisions of the European convention on human rights. He said that he hoped to introduce a judicial element into the procedure to comply with article 5·3 of the convention. The House waited expectantly to discover the obstacles to achieving that. We are still in the dark.
When the Committee resumed on Tuesday 10 January, the Under-Secretary of State read out a letter, which some of us have read. The letter said that the Government did not expect to have reached a conclusion as to how to respond to the Brogan case in time to incorporate any necessary changes in the law before the enactment of the legislation and the Royal Assent. The date for that was given as 21 or 22 March.
Why are the Government delaying their response to the Brogan case? What difficulties have led to this parliamentary interruption of the improperly short deliberations on the Report stage of the legislation? I hope that the Minister will give the House the answer.
When this legislation was introduced, it did not take the Government three months to decide how to act. However, we have been told that it will take more than three months to reach a conclusion on the modest issue of detention for seven days, which the European court found to be a violation of the convention. The Home Secretary is behaving in an unacceptable and dilatory fashion. He may have been unable to carry his Cabinet colleagues with him in preferring the judicial solution. If that is so, we are entitled to know. If someone outside the Government is preventing them from doing what they wish—to introduce a judicial element to review the case of those detained for up to seven days—we are entitled to know.
It has been reported in some parts of the press that some judges have said that they will have no part in it. If that is so, it is serious. If judges are saying that they wilt riot carry out, not only the views of Parliament but the law of Parliament, we are entitled to know. It is unacceptable for


the Home Secretary to seek to hush up this constitutional debate by confining the Report and Third Reading to a single parliamentary day.
Will the Minister convey to the Home Secretary the strength of our feeling that this issue should be debated on the Floor of the House. We must know why the Government are not yet ready to report to us. We have been told that it is because of interdepartmental consultations—my foot! That is not sufficient explanation. These matters can be conducted quickly if the will is there. The Government's willingness to deal with the matter is clearly lacking.

Mr. Mallon: Lest the House be under any misapprehension that discussions have reached stalemate with the judiciary only, hon. Members should be aware that the Army and police are refusing to give their intelligence to that type of judicial review. That is the stumbling block which should be confirmed by the Home Secretary today.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make that speculation. The House will listen with respect to the Home Secretary's explanation. We understand that he is dealing with a difficult security matter but he must give a frank explanation to the House. We have not received any such explanation. Instead, a Bill of profound constitutional importance which continues to curtail our citizens' liberties is being rushed through the House. [Interruption.] Some Conservative Members would like to sow the seeds of confusion about the attitudes of all Opposition Members. I have already explained our support for the Bill and our belief that it must be re-enacted. That does not diminish the constitutional importance of the measures before us, nor the seriousness of providing internal exile for more than 100 of the citizens of this country. It does not diminish the importance of holding people in detention for up to seven days.
Parliament must scrutinise and justify those matters at every possible opportunity. In future we shall not have an opportunity to amend the legislation, except on a Government motion. That is why we must be given adequate time to consider the Bill properly now. It is even more important to do so because the Government are legislating against the advice of Lord Colville, who disagreed with the way they intended to proceed on one aspect of the Bill.

Mr. Hind: I and many Conservative Members appreciate the hon. Gentleman's support for the Bill. Does he agree that, considering the point made in the European court about judicial supervision of suspected terrorists in detention, it would involve a simple Bill once consultation had taken place? With all-party support, we could get that Bill through the House quickly. Does he also agree that it is important to have widespread consultation with all those involved—as much as anything, to win their support—because they will have to operate the legislation?

Mr. Maclennan: No doubt there are those who, like myself, are willing to enable the Government to pass their legislation as fast as is reasonable, and will do the same if they introduce another Bill. I object to the fact that the Home Secretary is not telling the House what is causing the delay in his response. Why is it that we cannot incorporate the conclusion of the deliberation in the Bill if

that proves to be necessary? Surely that would be a far more sensible way in which to proceed. We have had not a whisper of information beyond the fact that discussions are still taking place.
Some of us fear that, when the Bill has received Royal Assent, we shall be told that the temporary derogation from the European convention is continuing, and will continue to the point at which it can no longer be regarded as temporary. The United Kingdom's commitment to the European convention on human rights will have then been seriously and unnecessarily weakened.
I recognise that the Labour Government thought it right and necessary to derogate from the convention to deal with Northern Ireland in 1978. It is conceivable that that will have to happen again, but it is not a light matter. It is a step that we should take only in the most exceptional circumstances. I am not persuaded that that can be said of the present circumstances. The Home Secretary has indicated what his preference is. If he intervenes in the debate, I hope that he will reaffirm at least that.
I hope also that he will tell us why it is that the House is having forced upon it a truncated procedure for further consideration of the Bill that is unrelated to anything that the Leader of the House said in his introductory remarks. It is a calumny to suggest that the members of the Committee have been unreasonably delaying progress in Committee. As I am not a member of the Committee, I read the reports of its proceedings with some detachment. I was left with the impression, however, that arguments were being advanced and followed properly, and that the timetable was being kept. The Government must do far better if they are to convince the House that it is right to guillotine the Bill.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: The attendance this afternoon exemplifies the fact, as I would describe it, that most hon. Members are sick and tired of the lengthy deliberations that have arisen from terrorism, especially that in Northern Ireland. It is true to say that there is considerable sympathy in the House and throughout the country for the long-suffering Royal Ulster Constabulary, the armed forces and the people of Ulster. The fight against terrorism must be continuous. If we are to fail in Northern Ireland, we shall find ourselves in the position that is being suffered by the people of Beirut. Such a situation in Northern Ireland would spill over into the Republic of Ireland and into Great Britain itself.
I would have expected all-party support for the Bill. It is interesting that, when the Bill began to be considered in Committee, it had the full support of the old hands of the Labour party. It has been said that, after the Christmas recess, the Labour party returned to this place ready to cause obstruction and to slow down the progress of the Bill through Committee. We can draw our own conclusions. Could it be that the new Labour party got at the old Labour party and ensured that the Bill would be delayed by means of inefficiency?

Mr. Sheerman: If the hon. Gentleman reads the report of the proceedings in Committee, he will learn why there was a change in tempo, or a suggested change in tempo, after the Christmas recess. It had everything to do with the Home Secretary's remarks shortly before Christmas, about temporary derogation. When we returned on Tuesday 10 January, we were handed a letter by the


Under-Secretary of State. Any change in tempo had everything to do with the Government's lack of reaction to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights, and nothing to do with any change in attitude on the part of the Opposition.

Mr. Arnold: The Committee members should have dealt with that issue. The cumulative result, however, was delay, and that has thrown the entire process into danger. The delay was well exemplified by the speech of the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who first made a good case for the Bill but then had to scrape the barrel to find reasons for delay.

Mr. Sheerman: I intervene again to complete the hon. Gentleman's education. He is not a member of the Committee. If he feels so strongly about these matters—I understand that he would not be one of those who has been dragooned by the Government Whips to come into the Chamber to contribute to the debate—and if he examines the relevant issues in detail, he will learn that, if the Committee had sat for a further two hours after 10 o'clock on Thursday 19 January, there would have been no necessity for the introduction of a guillotine motion. If he is aware of that, why has that not coloured his remarks?

Mr. Arnold: If we were able to believe that the debate, which has continued for more than two hours, is about only an additional two hours of discussion in Committee, there would be no problem. It is clear, however, that the problem is far more widespread than that. At best, it can be attributed to the Labour party's knee-jerk reaction of opting for opposition for opposition's sake. That is the best interpretation that can be placed on the Opposition's actions. The worst interpretation is that they reflect the Labour party's failure to stand firmly and solidly with the rest of the House against terrorism.
We are debating the motion with the knowledge that the existing legislation will expire on 21 March. If the Bill does not receive Royal Assent before that date, we shall have once again an influx of identified terrorists to the United Kingdom. Again, the IRA will be fund-raising in the streets of Great Britain and in our pubs and clubs. We should not allow that to happen; that is why we must proceed quickly with the Bill.
All people in both parts of the United Kingdom would expect a united Parliament to get on with the Bill and to make progress with it. The opposition to the motion seems to be a perfect example of the obscure art of odontopedology, where the Labour party opens its mouth and puts in its foot. When measures of this sort come before the House, why is it that the Labour party has an unerring capability to back losers? Over recent months, we have seen it backing losers time and time again. A Bill of this sort will have the undoubted support of the British people, yet the Labour party seems to be doing so much to delay its passage on to the statute book.

Ms. Mowlam: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we do not have both feet in our mouth when we speak, as he does. The Government control the timetable and they were able to decide when the Bill went into Committee. They could have arranged adequate time for the Bill to be considered in Committee, by the House and by the other place. Will the hon. Gentleman explain why the Government are incapable of doing that, or why they are incompetent?

Mr. Arnold: Without a guillotine motion, and assuming the co-operation of all parties within the House, the Bill could be enacted quickly. It is the irresponsibility of the Labour party that has thrown the timetable into doubt and that is why the Government require a guillotine motion. They wish the Bill to meet the time limit that must be placed upon it by the expiry of the current legislation.
As I have said, it is extraordinary that, time and lime again, the Labour party seems to be able to back losers. Its obstruction of the progress of the Bill is an example of how it is out of step with the remainder of the country. Only last week, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) proved how the Labour party is out of step with the remainder of the country in its backing of Viraj Mendis—a law breaker, an exam fader and a marriage of convenience contracter. What is more—this is very much opposed by the British people—he is a social security sponger. Yet somehow the Labour party puts itself into the position of backing such a person.
A further example is the Labour party's backing of unilateralism, at precisely the time that multilateralism is breaking through. The Labour party has an extraordinary ability to back failures. A perfect example is the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), who suddenly decided that he would back capitalism. He reached that decision only a week before black Monday and the collapse of the stock market. That demonstrates his great success in backing winners.
The House must keep up the fight against terrorism. There is a background of terrorist incidents such as the Lockerbie disaster, the terrible events at Enniskillen arid the discovery of the Battersea bomb factory. That shows that we must never let up in the fight against terrorism.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras mentioned the case of the Libyan embassy and said that he, a terrifically important person, called on the Government to close it. If embassies and high commissions in London are to be closed on the demand of ordinary Members, how many will remain open? How does one judge which embassies should remain open to avoid terrorism? Did the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras call for the closure of the Cuban embassy after the gun incident? He did not say what steps he would have taken after the murder of the policewoman. The killer was not identified. The head of the mission forbade interrogation, as he was entitled to do under diplomatic immunity, but the hon. Member did not tell us how he would have identified the killer or how he would have dealt with him.
It is clear that the united view of the House and the country is that the Bill should be got on with. The Government will keep up the fight against terrorism, without the Opposition's support, if necessary. I most certainly support the motion.

Mr. Bruce George: During the past couple of hours, Conservative Members have treated us to a curious mixture of pomposity, silliness, irrelevance and malice. Terrorism affects everyone. It affects all political parties.
Conservative Members try to tar the Opposition in eyes of the public by word association, conjuring up names such as Lockerbie, Enniskillen and Libya, and claim that the Conservatives are the only party interested in fighting


terrorism. That is appalling nonsense. Just as everybody can remember where they were when President Kennedy was assassinated, most people can remember where they were when they heard of the Birmingham pub bombing. Hon. Members from the west midlands certainly can. Accusing Opposition Members of being indifferent to people's suffering and unconcerned about terrorism and its consequences is stupid and malicious beyond words. Everybody here wants to eradicate terrorism. The difference arises on the route we should take to achieve that common objective.
The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hinds) said that we have to fight terrorism with every means at our disposal. We must fight terrorism with every means at our disposal within the confines of a democratic system. The Argentine military dealt with terrorism using every means at its disposal and, in so doing, defeated its own objective. We are a democracy. If we descend to the level of our terrorist opponents and use dirty tactics, we deserve to be judged by the same standards.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Will the hon. Member please reconsider what he has just said? Surely he is not drawing any analogy between my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Government of Argentina.

Mr. George: This subject deserves far more seriousness than that question displays. I would draw a distinction between what the Home Secretary has said and the nonsense that we have heard from behind him. Each Conservative Member who has spoken has exceeded his predecessor in stupidity, which takes some doing.

Mr. Taylor: Answer the question.

Mr. George: There is no need for the hon. Member to wave as though he is about to take off. In no way would I equate the Home Secretary, for whom I have great admiration, with a Fascist dictatorship. If, however, we resort to lunatic tactics to fight terrorism, others might make such a connection. That must be avoided.
The Bill is constitutionally important. In our parliamentary system, the Government have every right to get their legislation through as long as they have a majority. In our parliamentary system, the Oppposition also have rights. With legislation as fundamental as this we, the Opposition, have a right to scrutinise it. The man in the street who comes into the Strangers Gallery and listens to our debate would form the impression that the Opposition team on the Committee are a group of Che Guevaras, Ho-chi Minhs or guerrilla war fighters, and that the Minister was met by a group of violent assassins. That is a travesty of the truth. If such a person believed that there had been an incessant guerrilla war, he should know that it was a short war, as the Bill was introduced only in December and it will be out of Committee in January.
Anybody who reads the reports of the Committee will discover that we are up to our 14th sitting. I do not know how we can be expected to deal with such fundamental, constitutional, security-related legislation in 14 sittings. We are being castigated for having reached only clause 24, but that hardly constitutes an appalling filibuster. We have dealt with the Bill remarkably expeditiously. In addition to our scrutinising the Bill, we have heard the Home Secretary make an important statement. Late in the day,

the Government have introduced additional amendments. I feel no shame at being charged with scrutinising legislation. In no way does taking 14 sittings to deal with 24 clauses constitute parliamentary Luddism. We have done our job of scrutiny.
As has been said, at 9.55 pm last Thursday, the Government clearly intended to prevent the Committee from sitting beyond 10 pm. Those who read the report will see that the Government and their supporters voted to finish at 10 pm. The Opposition voted against that proposition. We were quite prepared to carry on. There are only a couple of amendments to deal with. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary should stop muttering, as his attendance of the Committee has not been 100 per cent. He was certainly not present then.
We are coming to the end of the Bill. If the Government had had the guts last Thursday to tell their Back Benchers, "Don't go home at 10 pm. Let us stick it out a little longer so that we can finish," we could have finished. The irony is that we are guillotining a Committee stage which has almost ended. We are not guillotining a large chunk of a Bill, merely a salami slice.
The process of guillotining goes back to 1887. It is wrong that the guillotine should be used in this case. I advise hon. Members to read an excellent fact sheet—No. 23—produced by the Library on guillotine motions in the House of Commons. The Library has examined at what stage legislation has previously been guillotined, and how long the Committee stage has continued after a guillotine motion has been passed. Hon. Members will find few occasions when such fundamental legislation has been guillotined after so few sittings.
If anyone is to blame, it is the Government business managers—not the Home Office—who introduced the Bill late and then imposed a deadline which makes a mockery of parliamentary scrutiny. What the hon. Members for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) and for Lancashire, West said does not represent the Committee that I attended.

Ms. Mowlam: Has my hon. Friend noticed that, according to the fact sheet from the Library, the average time for the Government to guillotine a Bill is 86 hours? This Committee has sat for only 52 hours, which gives a firm indication of how irrationally the Government have acted in this case.

Mr. George: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I made one of the longest speeches, which lasted about 40 minutes and dealt with an amendment on two serious points. Two serious aspects of counterterrorism were disposed of in that 40 minutes. I would not wish to inflict my speech on many people except as a form of punishment, but if hon. Members care to look at it, they will see that about a third of that time was spent responding to interventions from Tory Members. My speech could have been completed about 20 minutes earlier.
Moreover, the Chairman, who certainly would not permit superfluous, irrelevant and repetitious speeches, had to ask them to let me finish my speech without such frequent interruptions. So there is no evidence of filibustering. If hon. Members make a textual analysis of the speeches, they will see that they were not excessively long.
It is not right to argue that the Committee was beset with bad temper. The Opposition were not hellbent on


filibustering, but wanted to do a proper job of scrutiny. The Committee was reasonably amicable. The travesty described by Tory Members is not a representation of fact. Anyone who is interested in a serious, objective analysis of what took place in Committee, who reads the unfair and silly speeches of Tory Members and then the Committee reports will come to the conclusion that Committee members made a legitimate expression of parliamentary opposition, as is the role of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition, be it the Labour or Tory party.
Terrorism, whether indigenous or international, affects many people adversely. The rise of international terrorism must be contained. The hon. Member for Bury, South has argued that terrorism can be eradicated, but I would rather cite more learned authorities than him. Because weapons are so freely available and so many causes adversely affect so many people, either in reality or imagination, terrorism will be with us in perpetuity. It is nonsense to say that terrorism will be eradicated only by firmness. That is untrue. Even if we could eliminate domestic terrorism, which we cannot, we shall always have to deal with other people's terrorism. The Belgian people have little indigenous terrorism, but they have imported terrorism.
It is dreadful to argue that Labour Members are indifferent to the consequences of terrorism. Opposition Members who have spoken hardly represent the militant edge of the Labour party. I resent my hon. Friends the Members for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and for Redcar (Ms. Mowlam) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), the former Solicitor-General, being castigated for being soft on terrorism. It is unfair of Tory Members to accuse us of indifference or, as the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) did, of being sympathetic to, and the friends of, terrorists. I am delighted that he withdrew that unfair remark, albeit with bad grace.
Our task in Committee was made more difficult, not so much by our endeavours, as by the timetable restrictions and the lateness in introducing the legislation. It was made even more difficult by the confusion consequent on the proceedings being interrupted by the Home Secretary's interim decision on the European Court of Human Rights' judgment. That the Home Secretary came before the Committee was welcome, but it took up one sitting. It is difficult for us to deal with legislation when the Government's response to an important part of it is suspended until after the Committee has completed its deliberations.
How can we legislate on the prevention of terrorism when the Government say, "Sorry, we can't provide you with adequate information because we have not made up our mind how we shall respond to the human rights judgment"? Our task was made more difficult as too little time was allocated to the Committee.
Tory Members who peruse the proceedings will conclude, as will any fair-minded person, that on 19 January we could have completed our proceedings. The Government for one reason or another did not want that because they wanted to come to the House today and guillotine a Bill that to all intents and purposes had been completed. As has been said, they wanted to show that they were macho and to castigate us for indifference to terrorism. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West has cited often quotes from "Alice in Wonderland". I add another—that if one shuts one's eyes and says something three times, it must be true.
Conservative Members may think that, if they point a finger at us and say that Labour Members do not care about terrorism, some people may believe it.
In some ways we do great damage to our cause by causing confusion—

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: The hon. Gentleman invited the House to study the Committee proceedings. I notice that on Thursday 19 January, the very day he has mentioned, he made a speech in excess of three quarters of an hour on one small point. Can he justify that not being a filibuster?

Mr. George: If the hon. Gentleman had been here and awake five minutes ago, he would have heard me explain that. Either his attention span is short, he was sleeping or he was absent. If he was not present, he should not point the finger at me when I have the right explanation. For his benefit, I repeat that much of the time was spent on responding to silly interventions from Tory Members who for one reason or another wished to conclude proceedings at 10 o'clock by filibustering, yet we are being accused of filibustering. My second point was that the amendment dealt with two fundamentally important elements to counter terrorism and that to spend 45 minutes on them was do do them less than justice. Furthermore, I had the protection of the Chairman, who told Tory Members to let me finish my speech because it was unfair to make so many interventions.

Mr. Sheerman: My I assist my hon. Friend? May I draw his attention to column 691 of the last sitting of the Committee, when a further two hours would have seen the end of the proceedings and the Chairman had to reprimand Tory Back Benchers. and upbraid them because they did not wish to make progress? If the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) wishes to make a serious point about the longest speech, which was only 40 minutes on an important point, surely he should take into account the Chairman's criticism of Government Back Benchers.

Mr. George: I welcome that intervention.
We must combat terrorism by the means at our disposal, in conjunction with our friends and allies abroad. That can be done through legislation—through more normal, ordinary legislation. If we can only re-create a degree of consensus we may succeed, but the task of achieving more harmony is not likely to be advanced by speeches such as we have heard from Conservative Members.
Everyone present today wants domestic and international harmony, which would allow people to lead the lives they deserve. We all agree on the goal, although there are differences between us. I hope that Conservative Members will have the good grace to realise that there are other ways of proceeding. I trust that not all of them feel affinity or sympathy with the motion. In fact, hardly anyone whom I have come across fits the caricature that has been described this evening.
I also hope that those who are impartial—I exclude the overwhelming majority of Conservative Members from this accusation—will conclude that the Committee stage need not have been guillotined unless the Government wished to guillotine it. When we proceed with the Bill tomorrow, if there is to be any prolongation—which I hope there will not—it may be as a result of formal


guillotining. If the Government had let the Committee reach its natural conclusion, this slot in today's proceedings could have been used to deal with matters infinitely more important than allowing Conservative Members a glow of pleasure from making the emotional and rather silly speeches to which we have been subjected.

Mr. Ian Taylor: I wish to speak because I feel that my constituents would be rather concerned if they thought that there was any danger of the Bill not reaching the statute book within the time necessary, and thus not clearing the House by the end of this month. We are debating a timetable motion, but on occasions during the debate that seems to have slipped the minds of some hon. Members. I thank the hon. Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) for clarifying his statement, because I felt that he was verging on the extremism of which he was accusing Conservative Members when he made certain allegations affecting my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
A timetable motion should not have been neccessary. It should have been apparent to both sides of the House that this was a vital piece of legislation. I have not had time to look through the reports of all the sittings and, given the way in which these things work, I am sure that not every member of the Committee has listened to every word. I have noted, however, that there were 14 sittings, making 19 sessions. A quick perusal of the documentation suggests that Opposition Members' speeches did not always feature conciseness of thought, and that has contributed to the concern that has forced my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to bring forward the motion.
The problem is not that any member of the Committee is irresponsible. I am sure that Opposition Members are upright and clear about the need to combat terrorism. Some, at least, of their remarks are concise, and no doubt their approach to the legislation is responsible. I am sure that they share the views of a former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who said, when discussing the introduction of an earlier Bill to deal with terrorism:
Unpleasant as are the powers contained in the Act, they are, in my view, necessary in order to prevent the far more serious consequences of terrorist violence."—[Official Report, 21 March 1979; Vol. 964, c. 1520.]
Opposition Members who take that view will, I am sure, be aware that some of their colleagues are not so responsible. They are, I am afraid, extremely confused. I happened to notice that last year the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) said:
Conservative Members uphold the Act year after year when innocent people are being terrorised."—[Official Report, 16 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 942.]
That shows not just confusion, but severe confusion, about whom the Bill is trying to protect. It is trying to protect innocent citizens of the United Kingdom, and doing so, as the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South said, means that there must be tough provisions. To take the view that those provisions are causing unnecessary hardship to suspected terrorists seems perverse in the extreme.

Mr. Eric S. Heifer: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr.

Flannery) is not in the Chamber at present, but he was present a little earlier. Did the hon. Gentleman give to my hon. Friend that he intended to refer to him and attack what he had said? My hon. Friend may have an answer to what the hon. Gentleman has said. He may have been talking about people who are not suspected terrorists, but have been held for some time and then released. That has happened, after all.

Mr. Taylor: I note the hon. Gentleman's comments, but I would have hoped that the hon. Member for Hillsborough would continue to listen to the debate with the same interest that 1 have shown. If he feels that I have misquoted him on 16 February 1988—I have his speech before me—I am sure that he knows what he can do to rectify that.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have always known it to happen in the House—until now, apparently—that hon. Members who are about to refer to, or attack, other hon. Members give them notice. It seems that in the last few years Conservative Members have dispensed with that practice. I think it worth while for us to be told if we are to be attacked, and thus to have the opportunity to be present and at least try to answer or express a view. If that is now not the practice of Conservative Members, it means that they have sunk even lower than I thought.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have the hon. Gentleman's point. If one hon. Gentleman is going to refer to another, it is normally common courtesy to inform him.

Mr. Sumberg: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I think that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) may have been referring to me. In my speech, I referred at some length to the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I did not tell him that I was going to do so because I had expected him to be in the Chamber for the whole debate, which I thought was not an unreasonable assumption.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I think that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) was referring to the hon. Member for Esher (Mr. Taylor), who now has the Floor.

Mr. Taylor: I am grateful to you for your reasonableness, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have no desire to attack any hon. Member who is not present; I would rather attack hon. Members—if "attack" is the word—when they are present. As I have sat through the whole debate, I was not able to notify the hon. Member for Hillsborough that I wished to quote him. I hoped that he would stay in his place.
I am sure that Opposition members of the Committee will be responsible. I note that the timetable motion allows a further sitting of the Committee on 24 January which can continue until 11 pm, so that there will be no restraint on the way in which Opposition Members debate the two extra new clauses which they have said are so important to them. Judging by past performance and speeches in this House, some of their hon. Friends are less responsible on these matters, so the timetable motion is important because it also has a bearing on Report and Third Reading. It is at that stage when, I am afraid, the normal channels to which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the


House referred could be found to be less than reliable. If that were so, there is a grave danger that the House would not proceed in an orderly way with its business before the end of the month. In those circumstances, the Bill would fall foul of the date of 22 March, which would be outrageous.
My constituents and the constituents of my hon. Friends would justifiably feel that our right hon. Friend the Leader of the House had not acted promptly enough if he was not able to push the business through by the end of this month. For those reasons, I entirely accept that a guillotine motion is needed. It will enable the Bill to take its course by the end of this month, with sufficient time, still, for reasoned argument and—as the hon. Member for Walsall, South said was necessary—for a proper scrutiny in Committee, on Report and on Third Reading.
People in the United Kingdom do not want the police to be handicapped in fighting terrorism. They do not want terrorist organisations to be free to operate. The Government cannot afford to wait for terrorist crime to be committed before bringing in legislation. I do not think that anyone would dispute that there are controversial provisions in the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. There are many provisions which hon. Members on this side of the House would have preferred not to be introduced had they not been so necessary. We are dealing, however, with a highly charged situation.
The people in Northern Ireland and on this mainland, who would be affected, would not understand it if legislation was not in place. The risks for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House would be too great if there were any signs of the sort of extremism in certain quarters of the Labour party frustrating the Bill's passage through the House. In those circumstances, I entirely support my right hon. Friend's action and I ask the House to do so tonight.

Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh): In saying a few words about what is, in effect, a guillotine motion, I should observe that, if one is a Member of Parliament from Northern Ireland in this sort of debate one experiences the guillotine on a regular basis. I thought that it might be relevant in a debate on a guillotine motion if I were not to recognise the fact that littel time is left for me. I realise, however, that the Minister and the Opposition Spokesman have important points to make in reply and I shall not allow the guillotine to be enforced upon them as it so often is on Northern Ireland Members. My remarks must be even more compressed than they were in Committee, when we were accused of filibustering.
There is an air of unreality, because in this debate about a guillotine motion we cannot debate the actual Bill. The debate, however, has now lasted almost twice as long as two important pieces of Northern Ireland legislation-those which removed the freedom of the press and the right to silence. That, in effect, tells us something about this debate, although I am not sure what. What brought a sense of excitement to the Committee was wondering whether there would be a guillotine, a change of orders or just what would happen. What was remarkable was that it seemed that, when a decision was taken to put a timetable motion on the order of business, and it looked as though the Government might get through without enforcing it, there was some panic on the Government side. As one who

is not involved in either of the major parties, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that both sides wanted a punch-up and that extra time was being sought on the Floor of the House, for whatever reason.
One had only to listen to some of the speeches today to realise that the Government wanted this debate to make the silly, unfair and untrue point that the Opposition are soft on terrorism. I live in the midst of terrorism. I see it from all sides every day of the week. I do not believe that it is right that people who may have no experience of it should make wild and untrue accusations.
A study of the record of the Committee shows that it was not dealing with a straightforward Bill, because the Bill could only be considered in relation to the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978, which applies exclusively to the North of Ireland. They interlock at almost every stage, so that it was not dealing with one piece of primary legislation but with two, long, detailed and complex pieces of legislation. For that reason not only had we to spend more time on some of those issues, but we needed a change of Minister. What came through consistently was that there were times when the Home Office Minister felt that, possibly, the Northern Ireland Office Minister might be in a better position to give the information required, and vice versa. Because of the ministerial indecision and the substantial lack of information, especially about statistics which has still not been provided-it was almost impossible to make the type of crucial decisions that have to be made about this legislation.
During a radio interview this morning about the role of the Committee, the interviewer asked me, "Was it not the case that you were examining this legislation line by line?" I said, "Yes. I was under the impression that that is what a parliamentary Committee was for, which is why people like myself rise at 5 o'clock in the morning, catch a plane over here, sit through on that Committee until 3 o'clock the next morning and are prepared to do so on the subsequent day." It ill behoves people to make accusations that an irresponsible approach was brought to the Committee. It was anything but, because people do not spend such hours unnecessarily on the last day of Parliament before Christmas. We all know that most hon. Members would be going out to buy presents arid, perhaps, stopping in some other place en route. The reality is that the Committee sat through that day to the early hours of the morning and successfully considered two substantial pieces of legislation in five weeks. I sat on the emergency provisions Bill Committee, which I believe lasted about three months.
If fault there is, that fault is with the Government, who did not foresee the problems which would arise. Between 1984 and January 1988, they had sufficient time to table that Bill so that it could be dealt with in a way that would meet their timetable without this sort of pressure.
I believe that the role of such a Committee is an important and valuable one. We all learn something more about the legislation; new points arise and we gain a clear perspective of the difficulties foreseen, both by those opposing it and by those proposing it. There is something Stalinist about an approach which brings down a guillotine in such circumstances. When it became obvious that the Bill could be finished without a guillotine, near-panic broke out on the Government Benches and there was a great rush to be involved in the guillotine debate, for whatever reason.
I have already described the logistical problems that exist for Members representing Northern Ireland. I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members appreciate that much of the work that is done for a Committee on such a Bill is carried on outside that Committee. One must obtain the necessary professional advice and be briefed on the legal aspects of the Bill. If a Member representing Northern Ireland is unable to obtain such help because of insufficient time he is at a disadvantage similar to that felt by an hon. Member who must keep looking at the clock to ensure that he does not guillotine someone else's speech.
The hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) has said that terrorism must be defeated—in fairness to him, he consistently said that in Committee. The judicial abnormality created by the Bill establishes a situation that is crucial to present and future discussions. That abnormality is exactly the type of murky waters within which the terrorist likes to swim, within which he gets his cover and his recruits and spreads his propaganda. Such abnormality suits the terrorist.
If we consider the sorry scene before and after 1974, it is clear that the highest standards of judicial practice have been knocked down like skittles. The House has not done that although it has been the witting or unwitting agent—but those standards have been knocked down by the very people against whom the law is aimed. The Provisional IRA, the Ulster Defence Association and all the other paramilitary groups have been able to seize the ball to knock down those skittles as they wanted. They realise more than anyone else that they can only exist in an abnormal situation. That is their milieu and where they thrive.
I do not believe that the Bill or any other legislation will do what the hon. Member for Bury, South wants. We have had almost 20 years of such emergency legislation. To date that legislation has not defeated terrorism; nor will it do so in the future. If all of us, some of us or other people are standing here in 10 years' time and the same conditions and problems prevail, what then? What other steps can then be taken? What other steps are possible within the realms of ordinary jurisdiction?
With the Bill and other such legislation, the Government are going further and further down the wrong road. There must come a point when someone with strength in the Government will cry halt. They are on the wrong road because the Bill is incapable of defeating terrorism—there is no known piece of legislation that is.
The only way that terrorism will be defeated will be when the people in the north of Ireland have sufficient confidence in legislation. When those people are not suffering at its hands and when they recognise that it is there to protect their rights and interests, is when terrorism will be defeated. Until then, however, the Bill and other such legislation sharply focuses the fact that such devices simply cannot deliver. In Committee, I pointed out many examples of the very activities covered by the Bill—those activities did not occur in the vague past, but happened that week—which were standing in the way of obtaining convictions in the North of Ireland.
I find it difficult to accept that anyone would believe that there was some sort of filibuster in Committee. I was present for most of the time and, if there was, I did not hear it. It ill behoves people who were not present to make

such accusations, especially when one appreciates the hours that Members spent deliberating the Bill in a businesslike manner. Every time such a Bill comes before the House or a Committee, it must be put on the rack or under the spotlight to be taken apart, because, in part, it deals with the most basic rights of people.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I am hesitant to say that this has been a good, constructive debate because of the appalling things that I have heard from Conservative Members tonight. Any impartial observer of our proceedings would agree that the debate has been unlike most of the discussions in Committee. Most of the time in Committee we had workmanlike and constructive debate. As in all lengthy Committees, there were light and heavy moments, but constructive cut and thrust was the general tenor of our debate. That was certainly not so today.
The guillotine motion has been made necessary by a Government who have blended incompetence with arrogance and spiced the dish with selfish malice. The Government are incompetent because they are bent on forcing a menu of grotesque proportions through a limited parliamentary timetable. It surprises no independent observer when that menu proves to be so vast that it is incapable of digestion by our parliamentary process and democratic system.
The Government are arrogant because they are deaf to international opinion and to the views of their critics. They managed their response to the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in such a way that they alienated their European and international counterparts and deeply embittered all but their most slavish adherents.
It is with a sense of sadness rather than spite that I note the malice that has been apparent in today's debate. At a certain time I believe that Government business managers thought that the Government could guillotine consideration of the Bill at an early stage even if insufficient time had been given for such consideration. No doubt they thought that, by moving a guillotine, they could trumpet to the world that the Opposition are soft on terrorism. Although the Home Secretary may not have made that allegation, any independent observer would testify that there are plenty of smaller fry who could be encouraged to say that in the most disgraceful way.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: rose—

Mr. Sheerman: No, I will not give way, because there is little time left.
The Opposition have a heavy responsibility regarding this Bill. As I said on Second Reading, it is not a normal Bill, but one of great constitutional significance because it deals with the traditional rights and privileges of our citizens—their rights of liberty and equal treatment under the law. I remind the House that the Bill is far more complex and longer, in terms of the main clauses and schedules attached to it, than the Bill we considered in 1983.
We have not had sufficient time for proper deliberation. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, South (Mr. George) rightly said that, as Her Majesty's Opposition, we have a duty and a responsibility to scrutinise the Bill in a manner sufficient for that purpose.
I can say with confidence that at many times the Committee's scrutiny improved the Government's understanding of their own Bill. On many clauses and amendments, and certainly in regard to the new clauses, we educated the Ministers responsible—and two Ministers responded on different aspects of the Bill—in terms of their understanding of the clauses. I do not say that to make the hon. Gentlemen look foolish. That was the nature of the opposition that was the spirit in which our inquiries were received. The Bill is complex and needed such scrutiny.
As has been said this afternoon, we needed only two or three hours in which to finish the Bill in Committee on Thursday evening. For some reason—either the Government did not want to he embarrassed, or they wanted to say that the Opposition are soft on terrorism—the Chairman of the Committee said that no one in the Committee on both sides wanted to make any progress. That has never occurred on any Committee of which I have been a member. The Chairman directed those remarks particularly at Government Back Benchers.
We have had an honest and full scrutiny of the Bill. We had redoubled our efforts to ensure that some of the new provisions of the Bill—those dealing with finance flowing from terrorism, or with the remission that sentenced prisoners can receive—received particular attention, but no more than was required to do justice to the arguments that were being advanced.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) mentioned the Queen of Hearts. I believe that that is where the trouble lies with the guillotine. My right hon. and learned Friend was absolutely right that the Prime Minister must have said, "We have to show that we have a tough and macho image. We have to get through a lot of legislation in this parliamentary Session, and with this first Bill we have to show that we will be tough." Therefore, the guillotine was imposed, quite unnecessarily.

Mr. Sumberg: rose—

Mr.Hind: rose—

Mr. Sheerman: I will not give way. There is insufficient time and both hon. Gentlemen have had plenty of time.

Mr. Hind: I spoke for only 17 minutes in 52 hours in Committee.

Mr. Sheerman: If one reads newspapers and writes one's Christmas cards in Committee, one cannot whine in the debate on the guillotine.
We believe that the guillotine motion is an attempt to show the Government's macho image and to be a warning to all those other Committees that are scrutinising Bills at present. It is a disaster that we should be asked to scrutinise a Bill that started off as a permanent piece of legislation to replace a temporary piece of legislation.
On Second Reading, the Home Secretary told us that he was sorry that he had not responded to the European Court of Human Rights before Second Reading, but he had every intention of doing so early in the Committee proceedings. However, on the Thursday before Christmas, the Home Secretary came to the Committee for the first time and said that, reluctantly, he had to move to derogation in respect of the European Court of Human Rights. However, we had the impression that it would be temporary. After the Christmas recess, the

Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department came to the Committee with a letter that he told us had been sent the day before, although, unfortunately, we had not received it until that morning. If one read between the lines, it was clear that the derogation would, in effect, be permanent and that it would not be effective before the Bill had received Royal Assent.
It does not seem unreasonable for Her Majesty's Opposition to say that this is a fine old how-d'ye-do, when the Government start a Bill on Second Reading and we do not know what the Bill will look like halfway through, and when, halfway through the Committee stage, we are told that the Bill will be a temporary permanent piece of legislation. Any constructive Opposition would have to say, "We can no longer guarantee co-operation on this Bill." But the Government received a reasonable amount of co-operation that was far beyond what they deserved. Last Thursday evening, there were but two hours to go and the Government could have had their business. That was clear to the Government managers, to the Opposition Whips and to every Member of the Committee.
It is an absolute scandal that the Government can push forward a guillotine motion today in the light of what happened in Committee on Thursday evening. I can only assume that that was because of the Prime Minister's view that the Government have to show a macho image, or, the other, quieter, voice that the Home Secretary is a little ashamed of—

Mr. Sumberg: rose—

Mr. Sheerman: That would provide the possibility for Back Benchers such as the hon. Member for Bury, South (Mr. Sumberg) who is trying to intervene, to make scurrilous remarks that some Opposition Members are friends and sponsors of terrorists and terrorism. There was an apology for one such remark this afternoon, but at the end of his remarks the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) said that the Opposition were the tacit friends of the gun and the bullet. That is a slur on the Labour party and on Her Majesty's Opposition. It should have been retracted and I hope that it will be denounced by the Home Secretary when he replies to the debate.
Unfortunately, the guillotine motion has been a waste of the time of the House. It reveals much about the methods and the philosophy of the Government, who are determined to bludgeon all opposition and criticism into submission by any means at their disposal and to use any sledgehammer to hand. Today's debate shows that the Government will cut each and every debate because the one thing that they know about this place at the moment is that they will win the votes. But they will lose the arguments. That is why the guillotine favours those with large votes but with not much to say in favour of the case that they are making. We understand that, and we can predict it. But we do not understand a Government who will stop at nothing and cannot stoop low enough to slur and smear the Opposition, regardless of the importance of the issue and the depth of feeling about terrorism. Those who stand up to the Government are open to slur because we have an authoritarian Government.
The Opposition hate and despise terrorists and terrorism. We believe that there are far more effective ways of combating those evil men and women than throwing legislation at them. We hold the honest opinion that there are alternatives under the laws of our land that apply to all


citizens. The terrorists love the oxygen of legislation far more than the oxygen of publicity. We believe that the guillotine motion will do nothing except fuel the cynicism of ordinary men and women in this country who are not swayed by masses of legislation and the lack of effective action against terrorism.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): As usual on these occasions, there have been widely differing accounts of what happened in Committee, but a certain number of facts have been established. If the Bill is to be effective, it needs to be on the statute book by 21 March. Agreement was reached in the usual way on the pace of discussion in Committee. Having reached that agreement on 10 January, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) said on 12 January that the Opposition could no longer co-operate on the timetable, for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman gave again today and at great length in a press statement, when he said that any question of co-operation with the Government had been rendered meaningless.
It is impossible for the hon. Gentleman to have it both ways. Either he is revelling in his indignation that we were so inadequate in our handling of the Brogan judgment, and is withholding his co-operation in order to show how indignant he is, or he has been co-operating all the time and wants the Bill to reach the statute book after proper discussion. His speech today was riddled with the same confusion as has been shown by the Opposition throughout. I understand that that confusion continued on Thursday night.
It has been said several times today that, having said that they would withhold co-operation, on Thursday night the Opposition appeared to be willing to press on. However, in other ways we have received a clear signal that the Opposition were very keen that the Committee should shut up at 10 o'clock. There was the same confusion as has illustrated the Opposition's attitude to the Committee stage throughout.
I do not entirely blame the hon. Member for Huddersfield. We have a certain amount of information about this matter. It is clear to me that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—[Hon. Members: "Where is he?"] That is the point. Like some 18th or 19th-century general, he prefers to command the battle from a distant hill. That is what happened to Lord Raglan at Balaclava. Like Lord Raglan at Balaclava, he gave the most ferocious orders, at a distance, to the troops. The right hon. Gentleman told his troops that they must tear up the agreement, charge down the valley, regardless of loss, and land themselves in this guillotine motion.
To do the hon. Member for Huddersfield credit, I am told that, unlike Lord Cardigan on that unhappy occasion, he protested against these obtuse tactics but was overruled. Far away—as again this evening—and out of range on his hill, the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook was adamant that—

Mr. Sumberg: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hurd: No, I had better continue with my speech because I do not have very much time.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) illustrated in his speech, the Opposition openly and publicly—and taking credit for it—withdrew their co-operation on 12 January and in various statements thereafter on a Bill that is urgently needed.
The Committee stage is not complete, and the remaining stages are ahead of us. There is not a great deal of time. Given the risks of delay and the hostile, though admittedly thoroughly confused, attitude of the Opposition, who are shifting a bit from day to day, it would have been foolish for the Government to take them on trust and not introduce the guillotine motion.
Why did the Opposition withdraw their co-operation? Why did it change from a relatively co-operative Committee into one in which the Opposition decided, day by day, how hostile and disruptive they were going to be? The answer that the hon. Member for Huddersfield gave was the Government's handling of the Brogan judgment. The serious contribution on that matter today came, as one has come to expect, from the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). I shall deal with what I understood him to say, although I am afraid that I returned to the Chamber in the middle of his speech. [Interruption.] I hope that no comparisons will be made between me and the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook. My score, as regards the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, was one-love at the beginning of the day and now it is two-love. In most sports, that is considered to be a margin.
Although he is dissatisfied with the outcome, I hope that the hon. Member for Huddersfield will agree that both my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Hogg) and I have been entirely open both with the House and with the Committee about the handling of the Brogan judgment. I explained both on Second Reading and in Committee just before Christmas how we might proceed: either by derogation under the convention or by introducing some form of judicial control. I said that we wished to find a judicial route, if we were able to do so. I went on to explain the difference between the continental system and ours over the concept of an examining officer.
That difference was recognised by the court at Strasbourg. There is difficulty, therefore, over devising the judicial mechanism that the court's judgment suggested to us. I explained why, if we are to continue to use this power of detention up to seven days—which I believe is essential—it is right to derogate. My hon. Friend the Member for Grantham thought it right after Christmas, and I entirely agreed with him, to bring the Committee up to date and to explain that, although we were still working on the possibilities of a piece of judicial machinery, it was not realistic to expect that there would be an early conclusion to our deliberations.
In response to what was said by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, I should like to add something to what we have already said. This is not a light matter. The hon. Gentleman did not treat it as a light matter. It would be foolish for anyone to do so. We are talking about three jurisdictions within the United Kingdom0—Northern Ireland, Scotland, and England and Wales. Their ways of handling these matters are all different. We are also talking about the need to consult various people within those jurisdictions who are not Government servants and who are not to be taken for granted. They need to be consulted on a number of matters, if we are to set up a judicial machinery. They must be consulted on who should do the


job and what information they need to be given. We are not talking about the original detention—that would not be a matter for them—hut about the proposal that detention should be extended and what the procedure should be.
As I think the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) will agree, it is unrealistic to believe that one could discuss this matter hypothetically with such people in advance of the judgment. People outside Government whose views on these matters are important, would be unwilling to be drawn into hypothetical discussions. It would have been foolish to ask them, since the content of the judgment was different from what many people predicted.
We are still involved in uphill work, and I cannot yet say whether the outcome will be successful. However, we are working genuinely to see whether a judicial piece of machinery can be found. My hon. Friends the Members for Bury, South (Mr. Sumherg) and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and other Conservative Members who have spoken in this debate were right to bring us back to the fact that this should not be a partisan matter. There will always be discussion about details, but there should be consensus on a matter such as this. The Opposition's attitude towards our reaction to terrorism is hopelessly confused and irresponsible.
During the last month, we have had terrible reminders of the power and the wickedness of terrorism. There has been the Lockerbie disaster, after which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) appeared constantly on our television screens urging the Government to do more and to be draconian. He urged the Government to tighten up on airline security by means of one measure after another. At the same time, however, the Opposition were opposing the powers of detention and exclusion that are contained in the Bill, which demonstrates a total lack of logic.

Mr. Dobson: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hurd: No.
Furthermore, during the recess the police had to deal—thanks to the discovery of the Battersea bomb factory—with another terrorist threat that could have had equally tragic and disastrous consequences had it not been discovered. During the recess I used some of the powers of detention that are still available to me, thanks to the derogation that I announced.
I do not believe that any hon. Member, faced with the problems that were put to me, would have withheld permission to use those powers, or would feel that it would have been right, because of the Brogan judgment, to remove them and not to derogate. On reflection, the Opposition surely cannot believe that it is right—while they are pressing for tighter and tighter airport security and for more and more controls on passengers—to deprive the police or me of the powers that are necessary to save those who are at risk from terrorism.

Mr. Dobson: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Hurd: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Member for Huddersfield did not give way, and I do not intend to do so.
That will not do. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). As in

the case of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, one would be foolish not to listen with considerable care to what the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh says on these occasions.
The Government do not say that the Opposition as a whole support terrorism or sympathise with terrorists, but the problem is that they have drifted far away from the time when they had to take decisions on these matters, or had to consider the right balance to be struck. They have drifted so far that they do not come to discussions of this kind in a sensible frame of mind.
It is one of the maxims of responsible politics that those who will the end must will the means. Opposition Members have forgotten that. Everybody in this House wills the end. That is to say that everybody in this House wishes to see effective measures against terrorism. The difference on the Government side of the House is that we also will the means. Of course, that creates occasional difficult problems and the need for special powers. I do not believe that the Opposition have thought the matter through.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh thought and spoke on behalf of his supporters in the Province. [Interruption.] Yes, he lives with the problem every day. That is why his views should be listened to with respect. He does not agree that special powers are needed. I accept one of the basic points that he made, that special powers by themselves are not enough. He knows that I have never argued that they are enough. I have never argued that strengthening the security forces in Northern Ireland is enough. I agree with his point that we will not get an answer in Northern Ireland without respect by the majority and the minority in the Province for the institutions of justice and of the state in Northern Ireland. He knows the steps that have been taken by my successor as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to bring that about.
To say that, of itself, the Bill will not solve the problem of terrorism in Northern Ireland is not an argument against it. One thing we have surely learnt through the passage of the years and through all the terrible events that we have lived through is that no single measure is enough. I am absolutely sure that the main proposals embodied in the Bill are necessary as part of an effective answer to terrorism. In particular, I am thinking of the renewed proposals on detention and the power of exclusion, which has been criticized—Lord Colville would have preferred us to omit it—but on rare occasions, case by case, I find it necessary for a successful effort.
We return to the heart of the matter and the heart of motion that my right hon. Friend—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of it, pursuant to Standing Order No. 46 (Allocation of time to Bills.)

The House Divided: Ayes 272, Noes 214.

Division No. 43]
[6.32 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Arbuthnot, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)


Alexander, Richard
Ashby, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Atkins, Robert


Allason, Rupert
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Amess, David
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)


Amos, Alan
Baldry, Tony






Batiste, Spencer
Fry, Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Gale, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
Gardiner, George


Benyon, W.
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bevan, David Gilroy
Gill, Christopher


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Goodlad, Alastair


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Boswell, Tim
Gorst, John


Bottomley, Peter
Gow, Ian


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Green way, Harry (Ealing N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowis, John
Gregory, Conal


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Grist, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Ground, Patrick


Brazier, Julian
Grylls, Michael


Bright, Graham
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hanley, Jeremy


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hannam, John


Buck, Sir Antony
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Burns, Simon
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Burt, Alistair
Harris, David


Butler, Chris
Haselhurst, Alan


Butterfill, John
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hayward, Robert


Carrington, Matthew
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carttiss, Michael
Heddle, John


Cash, William
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Chapman, Sydney
Hind, Kenneth


Chope, Christopher
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Churchill, Mr
Holt, Richard


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howard, Michael


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Colvin, Michael
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Conway, Derek
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)


Cope, Rt Hon John
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Cormack, Patrick
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cran, James
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Critchley, Julian
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Irvine, Michael


Curry, David
Jack, Michael


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Janman, Tim


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jessel, Toby


Day, Stephen
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Devlin, Tim
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Dorrell, Stephen
Key, Robert


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Kilfedder, James


Dover, Den
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Dunn, Bob
Kirkhope, Timothy


Durant, Tony
Knapman, Roger


Dykes, Hugh
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Eggar, Tim
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Emery, Sir Peter
Knowles, Michael


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Latham, Michael


Evennett, David
Lawrence, Ivan


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Fallon, Michael
Lee, John (Pendle)


Favell, Tony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Lilley, Peter


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Fishburn, John Dudley
Lord, Michael


Fookes, Dame Janet
McCrindle, Robert


Forman, Nigel
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Forth, Eric
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Franks, Cecil
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Freeman, Roger
Major, Rt Hon John


French, Douglas
Malins, Humfrey





Mans, Keith
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Maples, John
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Marland, Paul
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Marlow, Tony
Sims, Roger


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Speller, Tony


Mellor, David
Squire, Robin


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stanbrook, Ivor


Miller, Sir Hal
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Mills, Iain
Sumberg, David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Summerson, Hugo


Mitchell, Sir David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Moate, Roger
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Morrison, Sir Charles
Temple-Morris, Peter


Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Moss, Malcolm
Thorne, Neil


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Thornton, Malcolm


Mudd, David
Thurnham, Peter


Neale, Gerrard
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Needham, Richard
Tracey, Richard


Nelson, Anthony
Tredinnick, David


Neubert, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Nicholls, Patrick
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Oppenheim, Phillip
Waldegrave, Hon William


Page, Richard
Walden, George


Paice, James
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Patnick, Irvine
Waller, Gary


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Walters, Sir Dennis


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Ward, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Watts, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wells, Bowen


Portillo, Michael
Wheeler, John


Price, Sir David
Whitney, Ray


Raffan, Keith
Widdecombe, Ann


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Wiggin, Jerry


Rathbone, Tim
Wllshire, David


Redwood, John
Wolfson, Mark


Renton, Tim
Wood, Timothy


Rhodes James, Robert
Woodcock, Mike


Roe, Mrs Marion
Yeo, Tim


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rost, Peter



Sackville, Hon Tom
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Mr. David Lightbown and


Scott, Nicholas
Mr. David Maclean.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Buchan, Norman


Allen, Graham
Buckley, George J.


Alton, David
Caborn, Richard


Anderson, Donald
Callaghan, Jim


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Ashton, Joe
Canavan, Dennis


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cartwright, John


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Barron, Kevin
Clay, Bob


Battle, John
Clelland, David


Beckett, Margaret
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cohen, Harry


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Coleman, Donald


Bermingham, Gerald
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bidwell, Sydney
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Blair, Tony
Corbett, Robin


Blunkett, David
Corbyn, Jeremy


Boateng, Paul
Cousins, Jim


Boyes, Roland
Crowther, Stan


Bradley, Keith
Cummings, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Cunningham, Dr John


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Dalyell, Tam






Darling, Alistair
Madden, Max


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Mallon, Seamus


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Marek, Dr John


Dewar, Donald
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Dixon, Don
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Dobson, Frank
Maxton, John


Doran, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Douglas, Dick
Meale, Alan


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Michael, Alun


Eadie, Alexander
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Fatchett, Derek
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fearn, Ronald
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morgan, Rhodri


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Flynn, Paul
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mullin, Chris


Foster, Derek
Murphy, Paul


Fraser, John
Nellist, Dave


Galbraith, Sam
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
O'Brien, William


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
O'Neill, Martin


George, Bruce
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Parry, Robert


Golding, Mrs Llin
Patchett, Terry


Gordon, Mildred
Pike, Peter L.


Gould, Bryan
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Graham, Thomas
Prescott, John


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Primarolo, Dawn


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Radice, Giles


Grocott, Bruce
Randall, Stuart


Hardy, Peter
Redmond, Martin


Harman, Ms Harriet
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Reid, Dr John


Heffer, Eric S.
Richardson, Jo


Hinchliffe, David
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Robertson, George


Holland, Stuart
Robinson, Geoffrey


Home Robertson, John
Rogers, Allan


Hood, Jimmy
Rooker, Jeff


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Rowlands, Ted


Howells, Geraint
Ruddock, Joan


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Sheerman, Barry


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Short, Clare


Ingram, Adam
Skinner, Dennis


Janner, Greville
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Jones, leuan (Ynys MÔn)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Snape, Peter


Kennedy, Charles
Soley, Clive


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Spearing, Nigel


Lambie, David
Steel, Rt Hon David


Lamond, James
Steinberg, Gerry


Leighton, Ron
Stott, Roger


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Strang, Gavin


Lewis, Terry
Straw, Jack


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Loyden, Eddie
Turner, Dennis


McAllion, John
Vaz, Keith


McAvoy, Thomas
Wall, Pat


McCartney, Ian
Wallace, James


McFall, John
Walley, Joan


McGrady, Eddie
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Wareing, Robert N.


McKelvey, William
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


McLeish, Henry
Wigley, Dafydd


Maclennan, Robert
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McNamara, Kevin
Wilson, Brian


McTaggart, Bob
Winnick, David





Wise, Mrs Audrey
Tellers for the Noes:


Worthington, Tony
Mr. Ken Eastham and



Mr. Frank Haynes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:

Committee

1. (1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on 24th January 1989.

(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 24th January may continue until Eleven p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 25th January.

Report and Third Reading

2. (1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock; and for the purpose of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.

(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than 27th January 1989.

(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in subparagraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.

(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3. (1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.

(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Private business

7. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings


on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

8.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a member of the Government.
(d) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—
(a) that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

9.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

10. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—
(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or

(b) prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal

11.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

12. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Committee

1.(1) The Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall report the Bill to the House on 24th January 1989.
(2) Proceedings on the Bill at a sitting of the Standing Committee on the said 24th January may continue until Eleven p.m., whether or not the House is adjourned before that time, and if the House is adjourned before those proceedings have been brought to a conclusion the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on 25th January.

Report and Third Reading

2.(1) The proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to al lot to the proceedings on Consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2)The Business Committee shall report to the House its Resolutions as to the proceedings on Consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than 27th January 1989.
(3)The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in subparagraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4)The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on Consideration of the Bill are taken.

Procedure in Standing Committee

3.(1)At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2)No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.

4.No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.

Conclusion of proceedings in Committee

5.On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.

Dilatory Motions

6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a Member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Private business

7.Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.

Conclusion of proceedings

8.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any


proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—
(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b)any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c)the Question on any amendment or Motion standing on the Order Paper in the name of any Member, if that amendment is moved or Motion is made by a member of the Government.
(d)any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;
and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—
(a)that Motion shall stand over until the conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time;
(b)the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

(4) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Supplemental orders

9.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion moved in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including

anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion moved at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Saving

10.Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall
(a) prevent any proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution; or
(b)prevent any business (whether on the Bill or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such proceedings on the Bill as are to be taken on that day.

Recommittal

11.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on Consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, recommittal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Interpretation

12.In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day, provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day, or is set down for consideration on that day;
"the Bill" means the Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Bill;
"Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
"Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.

Orders of the Day — Security Service Bill

Order for Third Reading read.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
This Bill provides a firm framework for the work of the service without putting at risk the efficient and careful conduct of its task. That is our main aim in producing the legislation, and it is what the House will have achieved if it sends the Bill to another place.
The debates on the Bill on the Floor of the House have been strongly argued, serious and sincere, and have revealed, as one would expect, some major and significant differences of view. I should like to deal once more, briefly, with the two main issues that took up most of the Committee's time: first, accountability, and secondly, the definition of the Security Services's role.
Ministers spent many months studying both these issues when no one was expecting them to produce a reform—but we were hard at work on it. On neither were we persuaded by discussion in Committee that change was necessary, but it was natural that the House spent several hours debating them both.
There was a difference between the two issues. On accountability, we were being urged in a direction which, in our view, was risky. On the other, the definition of the role of the Security Service, we knew and tried to explain that the Bill as drafted excluded the sort of dangers of which our critics were afraid. It is not surprising that the House spent the first day entirely—I think—on accountability. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitkin) would have been a little surprised if we had been persuaded during that day to make such a dramatic change of direction as accepting their schemes would have entailed. Our view, as I have tried to explain, was that neither of the two structures on offer as an alternative to ours was practicable or necessary.
This is not to attack the probity or patriotism of the people who might have served on the suggested bodies. It is merely to say that we would have put them in an impossible possition. We should not create structures that force those who operate them to make impossible choices, such as judging without all the facts or, knowing all the facts, staying silent and failing to satisfy the public or Parliament. Another choice would have been to speak out and damage the nation's security. People should not be put in a position of having to do either one or the other. That has been our continued and firm view since I first expounded it to the House in December 1986.
Differing views were fully ventilated during the first day of the Committee stage. Re-reading Hansard and recalling the debate, it is interesting to note that those who advanced the two differing structures recognised the flaws in the schemes of others. That was evident in the analysis by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook of the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd). The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook called it a halfway house and perceived one point that not

all commentators have spotted. It derived from the fact that my hon. Friend borrowed so closely from the Canadian experience, and it was that his proposal might not really be a form of parliamentary oversight. As he explained to us, persons of substance, who could be mostly, if not entirely, from outside Parliament, would be made Privy Councillors to get them inside the barrier of secrecy. There is nothing essentially parliamentary about that. Indeed, it could be regarded—although not, I think, by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldrige-Brownhills—as an extension or expansion of our proposals for a commissioner and a complaints tribunal, which are already in the Bill.
The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was possibly one of the most trenchant critics of the alternative of a purely parliamentary Select Committee, which was the Opposition's proposal. He described that as not entirely suitable for the supervision of the Security Service, and he described its advocacy by the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook as unrealistic, because it is unrealistic to imagine a Select Committee taking the Security Service out of party political controversy—quite the reverse.
I shall not repeat the argument that I used on that occasion except to say that I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South who, towards the end of the day, argued eloquently that he believed that that path was inevitable. It is rash to say "never" in politics but he was going considerably too far in saying that it was "inevitable". I shall add only that either of the structures that were offered as an alternative to our proposal would have carried serious risks of danger and confusion.
It sometimes seemed that the strongest argument on which some of the critics rested was that similar structures were in operation abroad. I do not think that by training or instinct I am one of the most insular Members of the House. Indeed, from time to time I have been criticised in the opposite direction. I agree that one of the faults of our system of government—perhaps occasionally one of the faults of this House—is that we are still too slow to find out about practice and experience abroad. But, if ignorance is one fault, copying is another. It would be a strange principle of legislation—I do not know of any other area in which this argument is used—to say that our main duty is to find out what others are doing and then to do it. That is a strange principle on which to argue a case. There may be strong arguments for trying to fit the experiences of others into our system, but one of those arguments should not be simply that it happens in another country, so it should happen here.

Mr. Norman Buchan: Surely the problem is not that people were seeking to copy other systems, but that there was no acceptance whatsoever that elected Members—as happens in other systems—should have any part in the supervision. That is the thing; it is not a copy of any system, but saying that the Government—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. We are now rehearsing arguments that have already been deployed at other stages of our proceedings on the Bill. This is very much outside the scope of what would be proper on Third Reading. I hope that the Secretary of State will have regard to that also.

Mr. Buchan: I feel very humble about raising this, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that was the assertion made by the


Home Secretary. If I was replying to or asking questions about it, he must have been at fault first. As he was allowed to continue, I thought that I might have been allowed to continue with my question.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is quite right: I was at fault in allowing a latitude to the Secretary of State which, properly, he should not have taken or have been allowed. I very much hope that when responding to what has been said, the Secretary of State will take account of what I have said and that other Ministers will also have regard to what is proper on Third Reading.

Mr. Hurd: I accept your rebuke entirely, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It applied to me as well as to the hon. Gentleman.
I hope that I have established my general point. I do not believe that the Canadian security intelligence service—this is a new point, which was not raised before—which has a high reputation, faces the same kind of terrorist threat which makes necessary so many of the activities for which the Bill provides.
Our debates have shown once again the deep and damaging divisions that still exist in the House on such matters and on questions of principle, about which Opposition Members feel strongly. That would put into a difficult position anyone entrusted with the kind of task that they would have had under the Opposition's proposal.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Was not one of our difficulties in Committee, which we are now encountering on Third Reading and which is in the very proposals of the Bill, that all this is being done in a vacuum and in the absence of an authority that could look at this issue more generally? Such an authority would be a Royal Commission, which could try to weigh up the arguments, some of which are clearly behind the barrier of secrecy, and give guidance to the House on fundamental principles such as the rule of law, citizens' rights and the needs of the Security Service. The absence of a Royal Commission has caused the House difficulty when weighing the Government's contentions.

Mr. Hurd: I understand my hon. Friend's point. However, if a Royal Commission were appointed, it would come up against exactly the same difficulties that I have been trying to analyse in reference to proposals for parliamentary oversight—even of the kind proposed by my hon. Friend, which was not necessarily or strictly parliamentary. The conclusion must be that we need to work out structures and arrangements that can grow out of and fit our own system and our own requirements, and that is what we are doing in the Bill.
Without getting out of order again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall now turn to the question of functions. Having considered all the points that have been made, we believe that the definition of functions in the Bill needs to be one that would enable the Security Service to make any contribution to the protection of the nation's security which is clearly necessary. It would be a mistake to try to draft the Bill in a way that creates a rigidity inconsistent with the need to ensure that the Security Service can properly defend the nation's security from threats. An answer has not been produced to that argument.
I refer now to national security. It is correct to say that much turns on the phrase "national security", but the term is well recognised and well understood in our legislation. It has been used as an understood and accepted reason for entering reservations on the provisions and safeguards provided by statute. There have been some 29 separate pieces of legislation in the past 20 years which have made such references.
The Bill follows closely the Interception of Communications Act 1985, in which Parliament agreed that an interception warrant could be issued by the Secretary of State on the grounds of national security. But under this Bill, as under the 1985 Act, the Secretary of State cannot act without fear of challenge. There is an independent judicial commissioner, able to form his own view, if he so decides, on each and every warrant issued.
One flaw in the discussions outside the House on this matter has been the virtual ignoring of that point. It has been said that under the Bill "national security" would simply be what the Home Secretary wanted. I have read various lurid possibilities in the press about what might be open to the holder of my office as a result of that phrase. It was argued that I could authorise the burgling of my opponents' offices in Witney, and I read over the weekend that I could authorise the interception of people's telephones simply because they were opposed to the Government.
It is for the House to judge whether I or any successor would be likely to authorise such activities, leaving aside for the moment what has been the function hitherto, or whether the Security Service would carry out such orders were a Home Secretary to give them. I am not pleading for the eternal, God-given virtue and probity of any Home Secretary—that is not the basis of the Bill. The Bill rests on the basis that in the giving of warrants, there should be an independent judicial commissioner. He is already there as regards interception, and if Parliament approves these proposals, he will soon be there as regards interference with property.
Those are new safeguards, but one is already on the statute book and in operation. I have already spoken of its validity and reality in relation to my own work. The amount of time that I spend on these matters has rightly increased as a result of the existing legislation. The other provision is in the Bill and would be added to the safeguards, if Parliament approves the Bill.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does the Home Secretary recall that, in the press over Christmas, there appeared a story to the effect that he was prepared to give an undertaking that the telephones of Members of Parliament would not be intercepted save in the case of criminal matters? Is he prepared to give such an undertaking now?

Mr. Hurd: The undertaking was originally given by Lord Wilson of Rievaulx and has been repeated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I think most recently in 1986. The assurance is there and there is no reason to add to it. The assurance stands. I was talking about national security. There are safeguards in the Bill to ensure that national security is defined in practice as it is defined in law.

Mr. Bob Cryer: A few moments ago the Home Secretary implied that the Security Service might well refuse to carry out a warrant if in its view—this


was the implication—it did not conform to national security, such as, for example, a warrant that the Home Secretary wanted to issue in terms of political opponents. Is he suggesting that the Security Service will have its own definition and will be able to judge a warrant on its definition of national security?

Mr. Hurd: No. It would come to me with a suggestion for a warrant, and I would judge whether to approve it in accordance with whether it complied with the law. The commissioner would be behind me, able, if he should so organise his work, to examine every case and to ensure that my definition of national security, the Security Service's application and the issuing of a warrant was in accordance with the law. These are new safeguards and, as I say, I think that they have been undervalued in debate.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Hurd: I have given way to my hon. Friend once already, and I should like to proceed.

Mr. Shepherd: My right hon. Friend ought to say where the Bill says that.

Mr. Hurd: The commissioner has two principal jobs, and one of them is to examine the issuing of warrants by the Secretary of State. That is one of his main duties. In doing that, he will do as I know he already does in the case of the interception of communications, for which the provisions in law are very similar, and examine the point that I have been dealing with.
I recognise that in discussing the role of the Security Service, some peple would like to include in the Bill more explanatory and declaratory material. However, the language in the Bill is as clear and as unequivocal as possible. Having listened to the debate, I think that that is the effect that most hon. Members would want to achieve.
In arguing at some length about what has been left out and what critics of the Bill would like to see put in, I hope that we will not forget the remarkable innovations that the Bill proposes. It is amazing how familiarity breeds a certain scorn.
The Government propose to put the Security Service on a statutory basis and are proposing a warrant procedure for any proposals for interference with property. There will be a commissioner to ensure that the warrant procedure is strictly applied by the Secretary of State in accordance with the law. We propose a grievance procedure with a tribunal and the right of the commissioner to rove inside the barrier of secrecy in matters arising out of cases directed to his attention. If anyone had said a year ago, or even six months ago, that such a Bill was proposed, the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who is fair-minded man with a passionate interest in such matters and who smiles in half-acknowledgement of my point, would have said that that was grotesquely unlikely. That is the main purpose and thrust of the Bill.
I hope that, in the legitmate argument about all the good things that hon. Members would like to see in the Bill, there will be at least a fair-minded acknowledgement that we have come a long way, substantially farther than our predecessors in government or than our critics supposed was at all likely.
Nowadays I keep on talking about balance, and it is becoming a platitude. As my hon. Friend the Member for

Aldridge-Brownhills said, there has to be a balance between freedom and security. That is the texture of the everyday life of the Home Secretary. The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) knows that perfectly well. The liberty and freedom of the individual have to be set against the freedom to protect him and the whole nation from those who threaten our security and well-being. The structures that we devise have to make it possible for such balances to be struck.
For many years the position was ill-defined, and we feel that now is the right time to establish the Security Service in the clear language of statute, and to assign clear roles and responsibilities to the Secretary of State, the commissioner and the tribunal. This is the right time to introduce statutory arrangements for a warrant procedure, to make sure that the balance can be struck at the right level in every case.
Many hon. Members want to move the balance further. I understand that, but equally I hope that they will understand the nature of the judgment and the balance that has to be made. I must make one final point. I am sure that most of our constituents, the public as a whole, want and expect the Security Service to protect us They understand basically what it is about. There is widespread and understandable concern if, at any time in that challenging and dangerous task, there appears to be any lapse in the quality of the job or the intelligence obtained. We appear to expect superlative effort and infallible results from those who defend us in this sphere.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) who has much experience in these matters, said on Second Reading:
The failures of the secret services are broadcast, but, of course, their successes are unsung, which is as it should be."—[Official Report, 21 December 1988; Vol. 144, c. 493.]
That was absolutely right.
I hope that, on reflection. the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook will look again at what he said on Second Reading. He said:
In truth, since the war MI5 has been one of the worst and most ridiculed security services in the western Alliance."—[Official Report, 15 December 1988; Vol. 143, c. 1124.]
I do not know whether that was part of his text or whether it was spontaneous, but it is not true. I know that because I have increasing occasion to discuss these matters with people in other countries. I know that, day after day, the Security Service has to identify terrorist threats and arms supplies and prevent terrorist action and hostile foreign actions. The list is long. Members of the service often risk their lives in such work. In discussing such matters, comments such as that from the Opposition Front Bench are neither fair nor just.
The Bill represents a major step forward for the Security Service and for the whole country. It represents a fundamental change in the way that we arrange for the necessary work of the service. We are moving it on to a firm statutory basis and appointing a commissioner and a tribunal to review warrants and to consider complaints. Of course there are those who would like more, or who want to propose changes. The debate about this matter will not collapse, and we have examined and discussed such changes at length. The House will recognise the depth of this reform, the responsible but radical way that I have approached the matter arid the very real advance embodied in the Bill. I invite the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: The more that the Opposition hear about the Security Service Bill the less we like it. Our opposition is in three distinct related parts, but before I describe that opposition, which was reinforced by what we heard in Committee last week, I should like to set out again the underlying cause of our concern.
Until the Bill becomes law, as no doubt it will, the legal position of the Security Service is that which Lord Denning set out 25 years ago. That is:
Members of the services are, in the eye of the law, ordinary citizens with no special powers greater than anyone else. They have no special powers of arrest, such as the police have. No special powers of search are given to them. They cannot enter premises without the consent of the householder even though they may suspect a spy is there.
The Bill is designed to change all that. If the Bill is passed, when members of the Security Service enter premises, they will, presuming that they have obtained the Home Secretary's warrant, do so with the protection of the law. The decision to give the Security Service a legal persona and legal obligations within which to work could have provided complete reassurance about its future activity, but the contents of the Bill—combined with what we have heard in Committee from the Home Secretary—has produced in many people, and certainly in the Opposition, quite the opposite results. The more we hear from the Home Secretary, the greater our concern becomes.
Our concern can be described under three headings—first, those things that should have been in the Bill but have been omitted; secondly the interpretations of some of the Bill's provisions; and thirdly, provisions that are unacceptable in themselves. As far as is consistent with the rules of order, I shall attempt to deal with each of these objections in turn.
I know that the rules governing the conduct of Third Reading debates prevent me from dealing in any great detail with the Bill's omissions. However, it is right, and possible, for me at least to assert that no Bill of this sort should be acceptable to the free Parliament of a democracy without the inclusion of adequate provisions for the supervision of the Security Service. The Home Secretary spent some time before he was called to order explaining why, in his view, such supervision was impossible or inappropriate. I shall not transgress to the same extent, but I shall, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, say something about what the Home Secretary suggested to the House.
Essentially, the Bill provides supervision by Government nominees. It should have provided supervision by a body that would responsibly discharge, at least to some extent, independent oversight. On the first day of the Committee stage, when two rival schemes to provide that supervision were proposed, the Home Secretary—I suspect from his demeanour that he knows this—made no attempt seriously to meet the arguments of either the official Opposition or his hon. Friends. That was the view of the whole House. The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) accused him of ignoring the serious arguments. The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said that the Home Secretary failed to understand the need to balance the needs of the security and democracy. The hon. Member for Caithness and

Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) described his speech as completely failing to address the central issue of accountability.
I have no doubt how that failing came about. Insisting that the control of the security services is kept in the hands of the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary and that the only form of inquiry and redress should be under the supervision of Government nominees is politically convenient. But it is intellectually indefensible. The Home Secretary was at the same sort of tactic this evening. He complained about the shortcomings in the proposal of the hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills and for Thanet, South and his main argument against that proposal was that I regarded it as inadequate.
No doubt, if he had had time, the right hon. Gentleman would have said that what was wrong with his Bill was that his hon. Friends thought that it went too far. Dredging up as one of his arguments against his hon. Friends the idea that I wanted their proposal to go further is the action of a man not altogether confident in his own brief. I understand exactly why the Home Secretary should take such a peculiarly defensive line. The intellectual inadequacy of his case shone all through his speech on supervision in Committee, and we could not possibly support a Bill that did not include at least some independent supervision.
Our second major concern—the role and duties of the Security Service—was enormously increased by the Home Secretary's speech on the second day of the Committee. The major debate on that day concerned definitions—definitions of subversion, which the Security Service is to resist, and of parliamentary democracy, which it is to protect. It also dealt, in considerable detail, with the second crucial definition of the service's role and function—its role and function abroad, as is incorporated in clause 1(3):
It shall also be the function of the Service to safeguard the economic well-being of the United Kingdom against the threats posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British islands.
I shall deal first with the domestic activities of the Security Service. In Committee, our concern was to ensure that the Security Service did not interfere with, or inhibit, what was described as lawful advocacy, protest and dissent. A number of ways were suggested of avoiding its intrusion into legitimate political activity.
The Home Secretary's response to these genuine concerns was wholly inadequate. He tried to be emollient by offering windy generalisations about—I swear that these are his actual words—
the safety and well-being of the nation.
He gave assurances that what divided him from those who had moved the amendments—again these are his actual words—was a
difference of principle, but one of flexibility, or relative flexibility."—[Official Report, 17 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 213–7.]
Such statements have no meaning and answer none of the questions. The question that he should have answered, but has failed to answer, is why, if fears about improper political involvement of the Security Service are groundless, he is not prepared to incorporate safeguards into the Bill.
On Second Reading, the Home Secretary told us that there was no need to be concerned about political bias because clause 2(2)(b) specifically prohibits the Security Service from acting to further the interests of any one


political party. I tell the Home Secretary again, in the hope that at last he may be able to understand, and perhaps even answer, the point, that clause 2(2)(b) does not provide a complete safeguard. Our concern is not that the Security Service might act on behalf of a political party, but that it should not act in any way that reflects a built-in bias against certain activities, certain individuals, certain ideologies and points of view, and certain procedures that are essential to our democracy but that have been frowned on by the Security Service, and in which the Security Service has interfered.
I do not want to risk angering the Home Secretary again by referring to the established history of the Security Service, but we know, and he will readily agree, that in the past, the Security Service has interfered in matters in which every hon. Member, and I suspect the Home Secretary himself, believed that it was improper and wrong for it to interfere. All that we are asking is that the Home Secretary should say more than, "They may have done it in the past, but they won't do it in the future." We need a specific safeguard that can be written into the Bill, and the Home Secretary has not begun to give a reason why that should not be the case.

Mr. William Cash: The right hon. Gentleman appears to be confusing the provisions of clause 1(2) with those of clause 1(3) and conveniently merging the two. The reality is that, in dealing with economic well-being, the criterion is whether the person concerned was outside the United Kingdom, which is the crucial point. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, if that were being done, whether or not the Labour party were in government, the Home Secretary ought to ensure that that was not being done against the interests of the United Kingdom?

Mr. Hattersley: I know that the hon. Gentleman was making notes for his "impromptu" speech, but I said that I would come to the overseas aspect of the work in a moment. At the moment, I wish to emphasise that what we believe should be in the Bil, and what the Home Secretary has not begun to convince us need not be in the Bill, is provisions, couched either in negative or positive form, to prevent the Security Service from doing those things which it has done in the past and which it would be wrong for it to do in the future. Until the Bill, either by specifying the role of the service or by extending the definition of those things that the service should not or must not do, meets our concern about its possible use against wholly legitimate activities, the Bill will not be satisfactory.
The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash) asked about the Security Service's external role of safeguarding
the economic well-being of the United Kingdom against threats posed by the actions or intentions of persons outside the British Islands.
On Second Reading, I attempted to find out what that meant. The debate in Committee was largely based around the question of how that power would be exercised and what that role involved.
Before Committee stage I attempted to find out the meaning of the clause and offered the Home Secretary an example of what it might mean. I asked the Home Secretary whether my suggestion was a good example of what he had in mind. I used the example of the Sultan of Brunei who, as is well known and publicly established, was put under great pressure by the Government not to remove

his sterling balances from London. That was certainly an external force and, in the Government's view, it was related to the economic well-being of the British Isles.
I asked the Home Secretary whether clause 2(2)(b) would allow the burgling of the Sultan's palace and the tapping of his telephone in order to protect our economic welfare by deciding whether he was likely to remove his sterling balances. The Treasury and the Chancellor could then take the necessary remedial action at the first opportunity.
Any reasonable reading of the Bill would assume that the clause would allow that. The Home Secretary did not answer my question. Some people might say that that was reasonable, since it was unfair for me to ask for such a specific example that was potentially embarrassing for the Government.
In Committee, the Home Secretary rashly offered his own example of how the clause might operate. He spoke of
a threat from abroad in respect of a commodity upon which we are particularly dependent. One can think of oil as being such an example from the past, though not now."—[Official Report, 17 January 1989, Vol 145, c. 221.]
The Home Secretary said that a threat to our oil supplies would be a reasonable example of when clause 2(2)(b) might be put into operation.
It is important to remember, as the hon. Member for Stafford would be the first to remind me, that the clause talks about economic well-being, not physical security, of the state—not of convoys being sunk but of supplies being cut off. Fifteen years ago, the OPEC nations were seriously considering denying supplies to some countries in the West, until those developed countries accepted what OPEC believed to be an acceptable pricing structure for oil.
The Home Secretary offered that example and he has a duty—at least, his Minister does—to pursue it. In the Home Secretary's example, would the Security Service's power to interfere be justified? Would it be proper and right under the Bill, for the security services to "interfere"—the word in the Bill—in OPEC premises? Would it be right for the security services to tap telephones in the embassies of OPEC countries? According to the Home Secretary's example, that must be the case.
The Home Secretary has a duty to make clear to Parliament the extent of the powers that he is proposing that we should invest legally, not covertly, in this organisation. There will be mixed feelings about whether that is a legitimate form of operation. For the House of Commons to give such a power without knowing its potentially serious applications is not an appropriate way for the Executive to treat the House.
I referred to the word "interference" and when interference with property might be justified under the Bill. Interference is the power provided for the Security Service in the Bill. Under the Bill, "interference with property" is justified when the Home Secretary "thinks it necessary" and
likely to be of substantial value in assisting the Service to discharge any of its functions".
As I have already said, those functions are defined in a way that underlines the fear that the service can involve itself in activities from which, in a democracy, it should be precluded. The definition of when the Security Service can act within the limitless parameters of its terms of reference is equally wide. The definitions of how it should act and when it should act are wide. The definition of what justifies


it acting is wider still. The width of all the definitions, the opportunities it gives for interpretations to the Government of the day, and the discretion it provides for the service and its responsible Ministers are all justifications for voting against the Bill.
Much reliance has been placed by the defenders of the Bill on the ability of any man or woman who is aggrieved by the behaviour of the service to complain to the commission or tribunal. That is provided for under paragraph 3 of schedule 1. The Bill explicitly prohibits a dissatisfied complainant from appealing against a decision or testing it in the courts. We regard that as crucial to the Bill and I asked about it during the debate on the Loyal Address. It is a question on which the Government have hardly touched throughout the consideration of the Bill. That is an inadequacy and an omission which makes the Bill in itself inadequate.
The explicit exclusion of the small and simple powers to appeal or test judgments in court demonstrates more than the Bill's inadequacies. It demonstrates the Government's unwillingness to compromise with any of their critics on either side of the House and even seriously to consider any of the proposals that could have helped to create bipartisan support for the work and existence of the Security Service.
Taken in conjunction with the Official Secrets Bill—the two cannot be separated, because the Official Secrets Bill cloaks the Security Service in absolute, total and permanent secrecy—the Bill demonstrates how hollow is the Government's claim that they would like to see a common position between the parties on the security of this country. They would like to see a common position as long as they are allowed to stake out the ground in every detail and other political parties tamely occupy the area that the Government have defined and from which they are not prepared to budge even by an inch. That is not how bipartisan agreements are made. That is not how services which are essential to the national security are removed from political controversy. The Government have chosen to reject even the most constructive criticisms of what they now propose for the Security Service, and because of that we shall vote against the Bill.

Mr. Ray Whitney: Virtually every time the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) has spoken on the Bill, he has changed his position. That says something for his flexibility but nothing for his consistency or understanding of the issues involved. For example, his initial reception of the Bill was one of welcome and he said that he expected to support it, subject to reading the small print. There was no mention of the problems about oversight. We have now heard yet another change of position. Early in his speech he said that he had discovered that we are changing the scope of the operation of the Security Service. He suggested that intervention in property and other activities of the service will take place now but could not take place before. Later in his speech he said that in years gone by the Security Service had been involved in improper actions.

Mr. Hattersley: I am sorry to explode this part of the hon. Gentleman's speech but it requires a confession. The

So-called inconsistency in tonight's speech to which he has just referred was copied verbatim from my speech on Second Reading.

Mr. Whitney: If the right hon. Gentleman considers carefully what he said in his second speech he will understand that he changed his position within the speech. When he reads his first allegation about what is now to be allowed and compares that with what was allowed in the past under the Maxwell Fyfe directive, which he deemed to be improper, he will be able to detect inconsistency in his performance.
I must declare a degree of non-interest. I wish to make it clear, as I have done regularly in the press—I had not felt it necessary to do so in the House but it appears to be necessary—that I have never had the privilege of serving in MI5 or any other intelligence or security organisation. I hope that that is not itself a breach of the Official Secrets Act. I hope also that my statement will save me from having to write endless letters to correct false newspaper allegations or to correct the misapprehensions of Opposition Members.
I declare, however, a deep interest in our security. I well recognise that that interest is shared entirely by all hon. Members on both sides of the House. My experience as an unglamorous and straightforward member of Her Majesty's Diplomatic Service has given me some insight into the straits to which Britain and all democracies are subjected, and when I reach my conclusions on the issues that are before us they may be positioned on a different resting point from that of many Opposition Members and from one or two of my hon. Friends.
If I may say so—I say this with no immodesty—I have some awareness of the nature of the threats to open and democratic societies, and of the way in which they are changing and becoming much more difficult to cope with and much more subtle. In our efforts to preserve the balance between freedom, to which we are all committed, and the security of the nation, of which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary spoke, we must take careful account of the threats to which our society is subjected. We must proceed cautiously before we change the status quo.

Mr. David Winnick: Clause 1(2) deals with national security, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. He has said that he is aware of threats to national security and says that they have become more subtle. Did he protest in any way at the actions of Army officers in the early months of 1974? According to reports which appeared in The Times, which were written by Christopher Walker, certain officers were making remarks which were definitely subversive. That was confirmed in 1979 by Lord Carver, who deplored such remarks. Did the hon. Gentleman make any protest?

Mr. Whitney: At the time I happened to be a civil servant. It was scarcely in my gift to protest or otherwise. I share entirely the revulsion which the hon. Gentleman clearly has for any extreme Right-wing or Left-wing coup d'etat to subvert our democracy. I think, however, that the hon. Gentleman seeks to take me far beyond the bounds of the debate.
The balance to which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has referred is an extremely difficult one to strike. We would at great risk disturb the system at which we have arrived. I congratulate my right hon. Friend and the Government as a whole on the progress which has been


made and which is enshrined in the Bill. It is a matter for deep regret that the majority of the exchanges in the debate have focused on what is not in the Bill, what might have been in it and on what other countries have or have not done rather than on the changes—I would regard them as improvements—that are now proposed by the Government. The old adage that the appetite grows with the feeding has never been more clearly demonstrated than by the reaction of Opposition Members and of some of my right hon. Friends to what has now been achieved.
It is important for the House to understand the change in the climate in which these affairs are now debated over the past 10 years. I draw the attention of the House to the views of Lord Wilson of Rievaulx. We are led to believe that he, as the Prime Minister of a Labour Government, had especially good reason to he aware of the activities of the security services. In his book entitled "The Governance of Britain", which he was careful to point out was written after he had left office and after the flurry over what did or did not go on during his incumbency of No. 10 involving some MI5 officers, about which the world has been informed or misinformed by the Wright book, he made it clear that he had reason to understand the issues that were involved.
In a book of about 200 pages Lord Wilson devoted only two paragraphs to national security. The chapter in which we find the two paragraphs is entitled "The Prime Minister and National Security". Lord Wilson quotes with approval at the beginning of the first chapter a statement by the late Earl of Stockton, and it is important that the House reminds itself of it. It should be used to set where we were then in 1976 with Lord Wilson and where we are now with the proposals that are contained in the Bill. Harold Macmillan said:
It is dangerous and bad for our general national interest to discuss these matters. It has been a very long tradition of the House to trust the relations between the two parties to discussions between the Leader of the Opposition and the Prime Minister of the day. I ask the House now to revert to the older tradition which I think is in our real interest. Otherwise we would risk destroying services which are of the utmost value to us.
Harold Macmillan said that in 1963. I believe that it was true then, the Labour party believed that it was true then and Harold Wilson, as he then was, repeated it in 1976. Most of the Labour party believed that it was true then. I believed that it was true then and I believe that it is still true. Lord Wilson concluded a brief paragraph by writing:
There is no further information that can usefully or properly be added before bringing this Chapter to an end.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: There is another side to the story. As I understand it, these matters were always dealt with by means of private notice questions from the Leader of the Opposition to the Prime Minister of the day. As I further understand it, the present Prime Minister—I am open to correction but I do not think that I am wrong—refused to continue with the time-hallowed way of dealing with these matters with the present Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock). As I have said, there are two sides to the story.

Mr. Whitney: I must disagree with the hon. Gentleman on the substance. I have no knowledge of the nature of the exchanges that take place between the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It must be asserted, however—this cannot really be

challenged—that the statements that have been made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on security matters, following her statement on the Blunt episode, have been much fuller than any of the statements made by her predecessors, Conservative or Labour. The statement which was made by Harold Macmillan, as he then was, which was endorsed so warmly by Lord Wilson, underlines that change. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has been much more forthcoming with the House on security matters but far from satisfying the House, that has whetted its appetite. That is the problem with which we must deal. It behoves all hon. Members to understand just how far we have come.
Why has there been such change? Has something fundamental happened within the security services? 'With the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office, the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Mr. Patten) who now occupies the Government Front Bench, none of us can seriously answer that question. That applies even to my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason), with all his splendid researches and special sources of information.
Throughout the consideration of the Bill we have heard generalised allegations. These have often come from the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook, but not only from him. Whenever we have asked for substantiation of the assertion that something is rotten in our security system, we are taken back 15, 20 or 30 years. That must give us pause for thought.

Mr. Rupert Allason: Would I not be right in thinking that the Bettaney case, which caused grave anxiety—especially to the Security Commission—was just three years ago?

Mr. Whitney: Absolutely. I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As I said in Committee, the Bettaney case was an exception.
The main body of complaint has centred on the extraordinary farrago—I do not know how much is true; it is clear that a lot of it is not true—in the Wright book and the replay of the tawdry old stories of a generation ago. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) took us back to Palme Dutt, for example. We have heard many times of the Blunt and Philby saga. It is worth remembering that the Soviet Union had its money's worth about three times over as a result of that little clique of Cambridge traitors who were recruited in the early 1930s. The effect of their recruiting those four, five or however many there were is still reverberating. Such so-called evidence is still used by critics of the status quo, and critics of the changing system as proposed in the Bill, as justification for further change.
My hon. Friend the Member for Torbay mentioned the Bettaney case, which I accept revealed, within the limits of what we have been able to know, a depressing state of affairs. The details of the Security Commission inquiry that were released verify that. It is clear that the Security Service is a particularly difficult service. It spends its whole time looking for spies and subversion. It is, by definition, a closed and difficult world where personnel management and the broader picture are crucial. It is, presumably, not composed entirely of saints and fellows of All Souls—there are weak links in the chain.
We should note that we hear of only one or two failures out of the hundreds or thousands that there may be in the


service. The lessons of the Bettaney experience have been learnt. The security proposals were put into operation, a staff counsellor was appointed and Sir Antony Duff, whom I know personally from his days in the Foreign Office and who is an excellent administrator, has put things on the right track.

Mr. Eric S. Helfer: The hon. Member is trying to prove that there has been nothing to argue about since the days of Palme Dutt or what Peter Wright referred to in his book. How does he know that people have not been burgling all over London and elsewhere? It is a secret service. They do not go around with placards saying, "I have just burgled somebody's house," or, "We have just bugged somebody's telephone." They do not do that. That is why we think that they should be under surveillance. Can the hon. Member assure me that, since those books and, perhaps, those written by the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) were written, nobody has done any of those things which we know went on before?

Mr. Whitney: I am happy to agree with about 90 per cent. of what the hon. Gentleman said. I do not know whether there are other Bettaneys in MI5. None of us does. Knowing Sir Antony Duff personally, accepting the Security Commission and accepting also the integrity and skills of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I would wager that, of all the security services in the world, our MI5 gives us reason for pride. That view was reinforced by what my right hon. Friend said earlier. Is the hon. Member for Walton suggesting that a parliamentary committee of oversight would discover a Bettaney mark 2? It is inconceivable. The idea does not stand up to a moment's investigation.
It is suggested that, because there are from time to time rotten apples in the barrel and we find them out, that is damaging to the security services. It would be much more in the interests of the security services, as happened with Blunt initially, to hush up the failures. When the failures are exposed, everyone has an opportunity to say, "It has all failed."As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, the success of the security services can never be told.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: May I challenge my hon. Friend's sweeping assertion that a future Bettaney could not in any circumstances be discovered by an oversight committee? Surely he accepts that such a committee's duties would include matters such as recruitment, training and supervision generally. At least the terrain would be far better monitored than it has been hitherto.

Mr. Whitney: I ask my hon. Friend seriously to consider much easier territory—the rest of the Civil Service. We have active and energetic Select Committees for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for the Department of Health and for the Department of Social Security in respect of which we have no serious problems with official secrets. Is my hon. Friend telling me that recruitment policies and the quality of recruitment is affected by those Committees? If he believes that they are, I have to say that he is living in cloud-cuckoo-land. We

must recognise that there is a substantive difference between what we are talking about in the security services and—

Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I understand that the purpose of a Third Reading debate is to deal with germane and pertinent points of a Bill and those which were not raised in Committee. I do not recall recruitment policies in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and other such waffle being part of the—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. The opening speeches widened the Third Reading debate rather more than I would have wanted, but I am sure that the hon. Member will come back to the purpose of the debate.

Mr. Whitney: I shall, but I hope that it is understood that what I have said is germane if we are comparing the secret services with the operations of other parts of the Government service. I submit with great respect, Madam Deputy Speaker, that such issues are central to what we are considering.
We are considering special areas of Government which cannot be compared with any others, so we have to take account of the special characteristics. It is not enough for Opposition Members to say, "Of course we understand the needs of security but…" It is the "but" on which the debate turns. Too glibly, the caveats and conditions that should follow that "but" are ignored.
I should like, if I may, to say something about the extent to which the Bill takes us towards what pertains in other countries and the grave expressions of disappointment that we have heard from both sides of the House that we are not going as far as other countries with parliamentary oversight. It is important to understand the crucial change that is being made. We have the commissioner, a senior member of the judiciary, and the tribunal sitting on the Home Secretary's shoulder, as it were. That is a major change.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) has sometimes gone too far in suggesting that our Canadian friends have found utopia or nirvana. It is early days for the Canadian experiment, and they will probably end up, not with parliamentary oversight, but with a small group of the great and the good above the parliamentary battle—who may have been in it at one point—in a supervisory role, not distinct from the role of the Commission.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend have no views about the relationship of the Security Service to the rule of law, for example?

Mr. Whitney: It is precisely the rule of law that we are discussing. We are taking a step forward to enshrine by statutory provision the existence of something which hitherto did not exist—MI5. I hope that my hon. Friend will join me in welcoming the embodiment of the security service within what he terms the rule of law. Of course I have regard to that.
We often hear American experience cited as an example, and there is a small paradox in that. Many people on the Left of politics in Britain frequently use America either as a negative or a positive example. Our Health Service is always defended by an immediate reference to


the so-called black example of the American experience—I am glad that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is here—

Mr. Bermingham: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I asked for your guidance earlier. Many hon. Members wish to speak in this debate, but time ticks on and we have had a most wide-ranging—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. These points of order are usurping the time of the House. I appreciate that several hon. Members wish to speak and I think that the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) was about to reach his peroration.

Mr. Whitney: You are entirely right, Madam Deputy Speaker.
By contrast, those on the Left heartily welcome the American security service experience. I draw to their attention the views of the last—I mean that in every sense—Labour Prime Minister on the American experience—those of Lord Callaghan. He said:
I think the Americans wrecked their system by allowing covert intelligence to be discussed by Congress. It is absolute madness.
The Bill has achieved the right balance and I have great pleasure in supporting it this evening.

Mr. Michael Foot: I must disagree immediately with the opening remarks by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) when he criticised the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). My right hon. Friend's speeches, far from becoming weaker, have grown increasingly strong on each occasion and his attack on the Government and the Bill has grown increasingly devastating. Whether that is because of the weakness of the Bill or his natural capacities, I do not know, but I think that it is a combination of the two. Nobody who has listened to these debates could say that the Opposition have not presented a consistent and persistent attack on what is being done, and we have had sound reasons for doing so.
I speak partly as a journalist. Long before I ever heard how the House of Commons would try to settle matters of official secrecy, I had to look at these questions from the view of a journalist who was trying to print what he thought was right. If before the war, or even during it, anyone had suggested that there should be such an absolute prohibition on what should be properly printed as a defence of the existing position, most reputable journalists would have denounced the idea as a gross interference with the freedom of speech.
When the Home Secretary introduced these measures he said that he was taking the past into account, introducing a new method of control over the security services and a novel system of operating and that he should be given the benefit of the doubt on that. If he were present I would gladly compliment him on his diligence in attending almost all our debates and listening to what we have had to say. He does not seem to have understood what we were saying, or at least he has not translated it into legislative fact, and that is the argument to which I shall return in a moment. The right hon. Gentleman has a

whole series of measures so dangerous that he is afraid to leave it to his subordinates to speak on them. 'That precaution may be wise.
Some Conservative Members, including the hon. Member for Wycombe, try to give the impression that we in the Labour party are not eager to see the Security Service properly protected and able to do its work. One of the attacks on my right hon. Friend involved taking one of his remarks out of context and using it for that purpose. Far and away the most damaging revelation—if it is a revelation; I shall come to the truth of it in a minute—about the Security Service that has been made from any quarter in recent years was not made by the Labour party. It was the charge that for many years the head of the service, Sir Roger Hollis, was a Soviet agent. If that was true, obviously it would be deeply damaging to the whole Security Service. That was not a wild charge thrown up by the Labour party. The charge came into the public forum partly thanks to the actions of other people in the secret service.
If the Security Service is saying that we in the Labour party have not been sufficiently vigilant in trying to protect it, I repudiate the charge entirely. We want the service to be properly controlled and conducted and able to do its job. The direct responsibility for the worst and most damaging charge against our Security Service over the past 10 years was the charge that the head of the service was for a long period a Soviet agent. I do not believe that he was.
I know that there is the Chapman Pincher theory. I do not know whether we have a Chapman Pincher clause in the Bill yet. It is not specified in those terms, but there has been one operating over the past 15 years. Although members of the Security Service are not supposed to say anything to anybody, they are entitled to go and speak to Chapman Pincher. Some of those people told Chapman Pincher that Roger Hollis was a spy and he printed it., as did Peter Wright and others. Every time that that has been investigated it has been repudiated, and I hope that it will be repudiated now.
That is an example of how the Security Service cannot be protected by the forms of secrecy which the Home Secretary thinks can be erected to protect it. It cannot be protected in that way. A point is reached where the matter must be argued in public, and if it cannot be argued in public, the security services will be as damaged as they were when the charge was made against Sir Roger Hollis.
When people do not believe the repudiation, that also damages the service. The Labour party, and certainly my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr Rees), who was partly responsible for the conduct of the services when he was Home Secretary, utterly repudiate the charge that we are not in favour of the security services being able to do their job properly. Of course we are.
This has been going on since 1911, and nobody now claims that the accidental measure introduced in 1911, which has governed the proceedings since then, has worked properly. It has worked shockingly. Neither this Bill, nor the Bill to be introduced next week, deals with the problem, and we must examine the two together. In many respects the Bill will make matters worse, because the law will have been laid down in a way that makes it even more difficult to protect freedom when matters are to be settled in the courts.
First, we object strongly to having a Bill of this nature brought to us. We were told on the first day of our debate


that there could be no proper parliamentary surveillance. I shall not go into all the arguments, because my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South presented them fully, but the Government have made no attempt to answer them, and it is particularly important that they should do so in the light of the most recent evidence on how Select Committees could deal with such matters. The Select Committee on the Falklands, on which my right hon. Friend served, showed that a matter of boiling, burning topicality could be examined by a Committee of the House. There was no suggestion of any leakage or of any threat to the security of the state. What would have happened if that investigation had not taken place? We can imagine the amount of rumour and tittle-tattle, and the charges of various kinds, that would have spread throughout the country.
It was absolutely right to establish that Committee. It was a much larger Committee than the Prime Minister wanted, but, as my right hon. Friend and those associated with him proved, it was a perfectly proper way to examine the issues. It is the most recent example of the ability and versatility that the House has shown in dealing with such questions, and one that the Government should have noted when they brought the Bill forward.

Mr. Dalyell: I should like to praise the Franks committee, on which my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) served. I appeared before the committee for an hour and 25 minutes, and wonder retrospectively whether it was given all the information that it should have been given. This encapsulates a real problem. How can we be sure that such a committee is given all the information to which it is entitled? I doubt whether it can be.

Mr. Foot: I cannot say for certain whether all the information was provided; neither can my hon. Friend. Even those who were on the committee could not know for certain whether they had all the information, but I have little doubt that many of them strove to ensure that they would obtain most of it.
What is certain is that that committee, investigating as it did so soon after the event, had much more information on the conduct of the services at the time than they would have if there had been no parliamentary surveillance. The form of surveillance set up by Parliament may not be perfect, but that is no reason not to have it at all. Once we have set out, as we do in the Bill, to establish a new form of responsibility for the security services, it is quite wrong for the Government to push aside the arguments of hon. Members from various parties for the forms of effective surveillance that the House can establish. It is an insult to the House to say that we cannot devise secret methods of governing our own Security Service, but that is what the Government have persistently told us.
My second major charge against this inadequate Bill is contained in what the Home Secretary himself has said. He went out of his way to try to listen to what we were saying and to meet it if he could. In Committee, he read out a formula which he said should govern these matters. He said that he would not put it in the Bill, for various reasons which he did not give. He clearly wanted to believe that a statement of that character would influence the way in which we would consider the Bill, and perhaps also

influence the courts. I shall not read all his statement, although it is worth reading; nor shall I try to take one part of it out of context. He said:
There is no power in the Bill to enable the Security Service to take any interest in any person or organisation or any activity or enterprise which presents no threat to the security of the nation as a whole. It does not matter if such people have views on the structure or organisation of Parliament or if they are involved in seeking to change industrial practices in this country or to negotiate a better deal.
The right hon. Gentleman says that that should set all our minds at rest. Some of us ask whether it would have excluded or prohibited the investigation into CND, or some of the other investigations operated by the Security Service. The right hon. Gentleman will not give us direct answers. In Committee, hon. Members on both sides tried to devise a legislative method to get round the difficulty, and I think that an appropriate and sensible method was devised. I say that particularly in the light of what the Home Secretary said a few minutes ago—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is such a considerable parliamentarian that I hestitate to interrupt him, but he is now dealing with matters that are not contained in the Bill. I must caution him about that.

Mr. Foot: Let me say with the greatest deference, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I understand the problems of ruling on Third Reading debates. I have attended a number of such debates, on different sides of the House. Nevertheless, what is in the Bill is certainly a matter for Third Reading debate, and I am discussing what is in the Bill. Provisions that should be in it are not in it, and I am certainly criticising that, but I am also criticising the form in which the Home Secretary has left what is in the Bill. Let me underline that by repeating what the Home Secretary said a few minutes ago. He said that language as clear and unequivocal as possible was used to define the nub of the Bill, and that is what I dispute.
Hon. Members from both sides of the House put it to the Home Secretary that if he wanted to win the consent of the House and create a security measure that commanded national support, the language should surely be made clear. There were two or three ways in which that could be done. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has one suggestion; the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) had another. Various hon. Members suggested different methods, but we all wanted a clause to define some of the activities that would not be dealt with by the Security Service.
I shall read the right hon. Gentleman's reply, because I think that it is relevant to the Bill. I had asked him, why did the Government not
seize the opportunity to remove some fears by incorporating such a provision, in their own words if they wish? If, as he has said, that is what the Home Secretary means, why does he not say it in the Bill?
We said that time and time again. I ask hon. Members to note the Home Secretary's answer. He did not push the proposal aside and say that it was of no importance; nor did he say that it could not be done. He said:
The Bill sets about the problem in a different way. It sets out to say what the Security Service can do rather than what it cannot do. It uses the Harris definition, which the right hon. Gentleman so dislikes, of subversion and the restrictions to damage to the United Kingdom as a whole, and the other restrictions that I have spelt out. Although, as is the custom in statute, the Bill approaches the question by saying what a


Government can do, I think that the right hon. Gentleman will find that it arrives at the same conclusion."—[Official Report, 17 January 1989; Vol. 145, cc. 218–222.]
The Bill does not arrive at the same conclusion, however. If we do not take the opportunity to insert a clause covering all the matters that will not be properly investigated by any security service, the opposite will be the outcome. These matters are bound to come before the courts, perhaps a good deal more frequently than in the past, because no one will know exactly what the law is. Some hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Thanet, South, have had close experience of the wretched way in which the law has operated in the past, but neither the hon. Gentleman nor anyone else in the country has any guarantee that its operation will be any better in the future.
When matters investigated by Government security officers came before courts and judges in the past, at least there was some chance of arguing the matter, and some of these cases were won. The argument against the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) was won, as were some others. However, when the question comes before the con is now, they will quote what is in the Bill but I am afraid that it does not provide the protection required. They will not quote what the Home Secretary said to me in his reply, when he said that the Bill is intended to say exactly what he has said.
The Government will not change their mind easily—they will not do it on Third Reading—but I hope that, when a clause designed to protect proper free debate in this country is introduced in the other place, the Government will not have the insolence to come back here and throw it out.

Mr. Robert Boscawen: This debate has been rather extraordinary, because right through the proceedings at which I have been present the underlying theme has been that the Opposition are deeply concerned about the way in which the Security Service has worked, because they believe that all the time there has been a sinister plot to undermine Left-wing activists. Nobody, however, has mentioned any action taken by the Security Service against the National Front or the extremists of the Right-wing. The Opposition have an underlying fear that there is a sinister plot which has been maintained by the secrecy of the Service under Governments of different complexions. Whether it has been a Labour or Tory Prime Minister, that sinister plot has been there. Opposition Members fear that their telephones are being tapped and people have been looking into what they have been doing, which has been the purpose of the Security Service. I believe that the Opposition are not that important. The Security Service has more important things to do than to study Left-wing or Right—wing activists.

Mr. Buchan: We agree with that.

Mr. Boscawen: The Security Service has an important job to do, and it must do it as efficiently as it can, as hon. Members have agreed, especially the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). The question asked in this debate has been whether it will do its job more efficiently if the House has a window into that job. I do not believe that to be so.
The security services are not perfect. They make blunders and mistakes and from time to time they are

bound to employ the wrong people. The biggest failure of the Security Service and the special branch of the police—it cannot be laid at the feet of any individual—was to allow the head of Government, most senior Ministers of that Government and the senior people in that party to be within an ace of being destroyed in the Brighton bombing a few years ago. Had that been successful, that failure of the Security Service would have destabilised whatever party had been in power for a long time. Such actions must be the most important matters into which the Security Service must look.
Perhaps agents of a foreign power intent on invading or destroying this country by military action may be an important factor, but I do believe that it is as important for the Security Service to counter the evil intentions of terrorism and such actions that could destroy stable government and could change the policy of the Government.

Mr. Buchan: The hon. Gentleman is describing exactly what was happening when they did not have any supervision. We are suggesting that we should have supervision to stop such things occurring.

Mr. Boscawen: I am not suggesting that supervision in the way proposed will stop it in any way. I do not see how it can. How will the Security Service become more efficient in carrying out its job by spreading its secrets a little bit wider and making them known to some worthy people in this place? My main criticism about the Opposition's proposal is that, if they are told all the operational secrets and the purposes of the Security Service's investigations, what good will they do? If they are told those secrets, I believe that we are spreading the knowledge of those operations and the purpose of the Security Service's investigations far too wide. I do not agree with the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), however experienced he may be, that It is an insult to the House not to be able to devise a system for overseeing the Security Service. I believe that it would be an insult to the House if we were not able to show a little more wisdom than that. The wisdom is that there are some things that we should not know too much about, because the more people who know about them, the less effective the Security Service will be, and the more likely it will be that the sort of outrages committed in this country in recent years will escape detection.
The old thrust of the Opposition's argument, which is to try to spread the secrecy of the Security Service to the knowledge of a lot mere people, worries me. If I were asked to go on to a Select Committee, if it were set up, I should be worried because I am bound to learn things that I would not want to know.

Mr. Tony Banks: Ignorance is bliss.

Mr. Boscawen: I know that there are willing recruits to that Select Committee on the Back Benches—they are all queuing up to be on it—but my experience is that there are certain things that, if one does know, and one has to keep them to oneself, one would rather not know. I believe that that is true of the House as a whole. That would not be a good Committee to be on. One would be stuck with that information and knowledge, which one would know one could not impart—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must bring the hon. Gentleman to order. We are on Third Reading and we can debate in this House only what is actually in the Bill. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wandering on to issues which are not in the Bill.

Mr. Boscawen: I accept that what is proposed by the Opposition is not in the Bill, and I am delighted that it is not, because it would worry me greatly. I believe that it would reduce the effectiveness of the Security Service, which is in the front line in trying to prevent the sort of actions that we have seen in the past few years.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: As I have sat here, I have realised that the point of a Third Reading is to deal with the Bill as it is and not with how it should be. Nevertheless, it still leaves many questions to ask about the way that this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be carried out by the Home Secretary of the day. As I want to pursue that point, I shall not proceed with my argument that I regret that parliamentary accountability of some sort, which should have been discussed between both sides of the House, is not being followed.
I want to make it clear that I regard bringing MI5 under the law as an important step forward.
When I read about officers burgling their way across London I realised for the first time that MI5 should be brought under the law. I am glad that that has happened. I believe that the use of a commissioner is a step forward. I will bear your instruction in mind, Madam Deputy Speaker, and not discuss what should be in the Bill, even though my right hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) and for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) have cogently argued that there are deficiencies in the drafting of the Bill.
There are seven clauses and a number of schedules that the Home Secretary must operate and they will be in his left or right-hand drawer when deciding whether to agree to a warrant. He and the Prime Minister must operate the measure. I repeat, however, that, sometimes, there is a great misunderstanding about the place of MI5 in the Home Office. It is not a Department, nor is it in wide commission—only the Home Secretary and one or two others have dealings with it.
About two years ago I remember—I shall be writing books about it soon—I was at a memorial service in Jerusalem. I was standing above the city and listening to the moving service when a man came up to me and said, "Thank you for protecting my life and getting a decision in Cabinet." I said, "Don't thank me, I didn't know you existed." The man then went. I asked the special branch man who was protecting me who he was, but the man had gone. If that man thought that all such issues were discussed in Cabinet, he should think again. For that reason it is important that the Bill is drawn up correctly and cogently.
We are not dealing with a normal political issue. On those grounds I want to consider parts of the Bill and some of the issues that have arisen as a result of reports in newspapers and wider discussion. The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) spoke about six of his fellow Members being the subject of investigation. If those people had been members of the Labour party, I too would have

raised the matter. He said that those people had been fingered, or whatever, by MI5. I must ask myself whether those people would try to subvert the constitution.

Mr. Foot: They are old Tory trade unionists.

Mr. Rees: I doubt that.
I read a report in a newspaper about this matter. We have all learned to discount the complete accuracy of newspaper reports, but it raised new information. How did it happen that six Members of this House were fingered by MI5? Perhaps there was a visit to an embassy and an expansive young man or woman talked as though he or she were more important than was the case. Perhaps a young official at the embassy took up what they said and made it more important than it was. That is the way it sometimes happens. Immediately, that information was written down, signalled out or whatever, and picked up.
If the Security Service felt it necessary to go to the leader of the Conservative party to report on six Members, and given that it has come to light only as a result of our debate, those Members should be told. They should be given the chance to explain what it is they are supposed to be guilty of. It is only as a result of public discussion that this information has come out. What usually happens—I speak with some experience of listening around—is that people visit countries on the other side of the iron curtain for business or other reasons and there are always those who will make a meal of it in some foreign security service. The moment that is done, that person's name is damned—maybe for the wrong reasons.
The information about Members of the House has been a turn-up for the books, because it is not only the Labour party that was supposed to be involved in such things, but members of the Government Benches. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent has said, the weakest part of the Bill is how it deals with subversion. That has been the weakness of the Maxwell Fyfe directive and was apparent as long ago as 1972 when the director-general of MI5 gave evidence to the Franks committee about subversion. I have always been extremely concerned about this matter because too much subjective slandering occurs.
In Right-wing circles it is too easy to say that someone is a Communist, but it also happens in the Left—it used to happen far more. The word "Fascist" comes to too many lips too glibly. "Communist" and "Fascist" are descriptive words that should not be used because there is no proof. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent has said, it is not good enough to have the Home Secretary's words about what subversion means. The Maxwell Fyfe directive of 1952 states:
It is essential that the Security Service should be kept absolutely free from any political bias or influence and nothing should be done that might lend colour to any suggestion that it is concerned with the interests of any particular section
and so on. That did not do much good, and I suggest that the words of the Home Secretary will not do much good either.
In the 1970s there were those—I do not have enough evidence to know, absolutely, where the information came from—who were engaged in denigrating the then Conservative Prime Minister. I remember the stories, and the bits of paper that I now collect are all on the same theme. The information denigrated some Conservative Members and, of course, Labour Members.
The Bill talks about the Security Service, but there is no doubt that, at least in the 1970s, other branches of Government were involved in the game. It is all finished now—I have checked most carefully—but there is no doubt that the Army information service and those associated with it in Lisburn in Northern Ireland, played their part. They provided lists of possible successors as Conservative Prime Minister and gave their weaknesses and strengths. The information provided was such illiterate rubbish that it makes Bulldog Drummond look as though he had obtained a first-class degree from a prominent university.
We should remember that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) set up a DS department within the Ministry of Defence to deal with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament. I found that indefensible. The moment one has a DS department in MOD it can talk directly with other Government Departments. That should not have been allowed. The Bill refers to MI5 and the Security Service, but does it refer to other people in Government service? We may have to return to this matter shortly.
It is important to consider the role of Ministers once the Bill becomes an Act. Home Secretaries come and go. We are dealing with non—political issues and it is difficult for any Home Secretary to check all the information that should be brought to his notice.
I shall give another example. A year or two ago I was on holiday in Spain and I was sitting on the beach reading The Times. I had driven down to a nearby village to buy it. It reported a story in a Sunday newspaper that a member of MI5 used to vet applicants for jobs, or people who work, at the BBC. The Times report said that the newspaper had been in touch with the Home Office and the press officer at the Home Office and said that that was exactly what had happened in 1979 when I was in office. That was news to me, so when I got back I wrote to the Cabinet Secretary and said that I had known nothing about it. Shortly afterwards 1 received a letter saying, "That is absolutely correct. You did not know because we checked our briefing notes and you were never told." I was supposed to be responsible for broadcasting and for MI5 and I was the only bloke in the country who did not seem to know about it.
It has all stopped now. The BBC does not use such vetting and it was certainly never used in the IBA companies. But it enables me to ask the Minister how any Home Secretary can know the full extent of what is going on when his position is so transient. There is not even a relevant department. I am against a Ministry of security or whatever it would be called, but the Bill should provide that information should be passed on to successors if they are from a different political party. It is most important that that should be done and it is not done.

Mr. Tony Banks: My right hon. Friend regularly gives us confessions. I am beginning to think that he has learnt more out of office than in office. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the BBC senior personnel management have a military background and that that area is still a favourite recruiting ground for the BBC personnel department?

Mr. Rees: That may or may not be the case. I am concerned that if there is a case for positive vetting in any organisation it should be for those who deal with a particular job concerning a wartime situation or

something similar and that there should not be vetting by MI5 of people's political views and the programmes that they produce.

Mr. Winnick: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the story had not appeared in The Observer in August 1985—perhaps the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) should note that I read it while I was on holiday in Yugoslavia and not in Spain—and if there had been no disclosure then or later, it is quite likely that such vetting would have continued?

Mr. Rees: No doubt that issue will be raised in the debate on a different Bill in a few days' time.
I cannot comment on the new type of warrant because it did not exist in the past. It is right that there should be warrants. I am certainly not clear how they will work or how they will stand in a court of law, if for some reason they affect a decision in a court of law. My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) asked the Home Secretary about tapping the telephones of Members of Parliament and received the correct answer from the Home Secretary. Are there any limitations on the use of the warrants? If there are limitations on the warrants used for interception, are there any limitations on these new warrants, for whatever purpose they are used? I believe that the next changes in legislation will be on warrants.
This Bill has been brought about by events. The story from Wright has brought about the Bill. All Governments are driven by catastrophes about which something has to be done. Perhaps it is inevitable. I believe that the next changes will have to be made on warrants. However, I have to pull back because I do not want to discuss what ought to be done.
We need a Security Service to fight against espionage and international terrorism. I hope that MI5 and special branch know far more than we learn in the papers about the rest of the Semtex that was not discovered at Clapham. I hope that they have a great deal more information on that, because it would benefit the country. Nobody on either side of the House should do anything but applaud when the Security Service, special branch and the ClD break through, but it was luck that produced the discoveries at Clapham.
I am concerned about subversion. I do not really know what it means, but it is a subjective feeling in all of us. I used to believe that it had something to do with whether someone was in touch with a foreign embassy or was carrying out the orders of a foreign embassy, but I do not believe that that alone is enough. It is very important that any Home Secretary considers very carefully the matter of subversion.
As for the security services, I found the two or three members with whom I have had close dealings to be excellent officers, who knew what they were talking about politically. They had experienced a wider career than most people and their knowledge was first class. I had trust in them, but obviously others do not see it in that way. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) once said that if one reads the Daily Mirror or The Guardian one is regarded as a subversive. That aspect has to be considered, as no piece of legislation gets it right. That was one reason why, in the 1950s, when Lord Attlee was considering the subject he smarted at what he knew about the Zinoviev letter and for that and other reasons wanted an inquiry into the security services at the time.
Subversion cannot be determined subjectively. Espionage and international terrorism can be determined subjectively, but it is too easy to make mistakes about subversion. That is one reason why I would prefer a general oversight by the House, with people appearing before Members of Parliament. We learn to appreciate each other, whatever our political views. There would be a learning process the other way when we found out what is the balance of the use of the Security Service and what changes have been made in the past year. Of course that should be for general discussion. I do not want to know the details of the missions or bandy them around.
One reason why that man in Jerusalem was right is that I had taken a decision because it protected people's lives. We would not wish to do anything here that would put anyone's life at risk, but we have every right to find out in general what the Security Service is doing, because, if only marginally, things have gone wrong. We have every right to examine the Security Service in the way that I would suggest, but I fear that I would be incurring your wrath, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I pursued that argument. The Bill has many defects, and because of those defects and not because of the step forward that it represents, I shall vote against it.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: It is difficult for Ministers to say much on Third Reading. However, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Minister of State talked almost in terms of Home Office press releases rather than to the substance of the Bill. Tonight the Home Secretary advised us that the commissioner could tell the Home Secretary if his definition of national security under the warrant was correct. When challenged where that was to be found in the Bill, the Home Secretary would not give way. The difficulty about a number of measures is that the Home Secretary seems to be captivated by his press releases and does not use his analytical talents when he addresses the Bill.
I do not want to be uneven-handed, and I move to the Minister of State's ability to be just the same. When we considered what the Bill did or did not contain, we discussed warrants and whether they should be judicially issued. Many hon. Members will recall that debate. A compelling argument that has been advanced by the Minister of State, based on the Bill, is that there can be no judicial issue of warrants because that would extend the circle of secrecy; people would not know on what basis the warrant had been issued because they would not have the expertise, or access to the information. Then, doing a pirouette, he told us that any Secretary of State may issue a warrant. First the Minister of State said that judges would not have the expertise to issue warrants and therefore that they were not suitable, but within seconds he announced that any Secretary of State might issue a warrant, even if he had no experience, knowledge or understanding of the matter.
That is the intellectual thrust which informs this Third Reading debate. I am mindful that we are discussing what the Bill contains. It contains a duty, placed on the security services, to guard national security. What is national security? One would ordinarily expect, when reading a Bill,

to find a definition of such a term. From what the Home Secretary has told us, we know that national security is what the Home Secretary determines it to be. The House should be cautious of a definition that gives any successor of the current Home Secretary such overwhelming powers to determine what national security should be. During this century, other states in continental Europe have used the term "national security" to do horrific things to human nature and the soul of people. How can a democratic House of Commons accept a definition of a function that is anything that the Home Secretary determines it to be, without any redress? But that is what the Bill says.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Clause 1(2) makes it patently clear what the protection of national security means. It particularises national security. It refers to
protection against threats from espionage, terrorism and sabotage, from the activities of agents of foreign powers and from actions intended to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy by industrial, political or violent means.
How can my hon. Friend persist in saying, as he has before, that there is no definition of national security? What it means is patently clear from the text.

Mr. Shepherd: I am grateful that that issue has been raised. Had my hon. and learned Friend been a Member of the Committee, he would have learnt that those are merely illustrative of some of the functions that the Security Service may address. However, those functions are not exclusive, and that is the matter which causes concern. If they are not exclusive functions, the House should consider what functions the Security Service may look into. This power may be used in a malign way. We should be cautious about accepting on Third Reading the provisions of this Bill, as unamended in Committee.
The Home Secretary has made much of the fact that the commissioner may look over his shoulder—if I have misunderstood him, I hope that the Minister of State will draw my attention to the clauses in the Bill that deal with this matter—and identify something as not being in the interests of national security. We are giving the Home Secretary a clearly unreviewed function to determine what is national security. We are providing something along the lines of what was contained in the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The House knows that, by and large, that was a travesty.The Times called it a travesty. That measure was designed to meet the contentions that were placed in front of the European Court of Human Rights, when we were found wanting over the telephone tapping of an antiques dealer in Sussex.
That was the purpose of the Bill. What were the commissioners able to review? They could review something only if an innocent citizen, by some form of osmosis, came to the conclusion that the security services had acted. The Home Secretary fairly said that, under the Official Secrets Bill, no one may, under penalty of imprisonment or the possibility of imprisonment, mumble a word that a crime, fraud or improper act has taken place. The idea of the innocent citizen referring something that he does not know about—and if anybody tells him about it, that renders that person liable to imprisonment—to the commissioners is an extraordinarily obtuse way of trying to bring about the protection of individual rights and a correct balance within our society.
This is not a credible Bill for a Conservative Government to introduce. Conservative Members should be cautious about it. Our worry about the powers of the


state and our anxiety that they can be used in malign ways are respectable arguments. The Bill does not meet those arguments. I welcome—as did the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley)—a statutory basis for our intelligence and security services for domestic purposes. That is admirable. I have not heard one person criticise it. High Court judges believe that, to the ordinary citizen, burglary is a criminal offence. They are nervous about placing our security services in an unprotected position in front of the courts without a proper mandate or a proper warrant system.
The constraints that are provided by the Bill are insufficient. Insufficient regard is paid to ministerial responsibility and accountability. The Bill pays no regard to the rule of law and it does not acknowledge the right of lawful dissent, a right that is fundamental to our democracy.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Like the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr.
Shepherd), who has just spoken, and the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), I started from the position that to bring the Security Service within a statutory framework seemed, on the face of it, a step forward. However, as one has listened to the debate—and today to the Home Secretary's speech—my initial view has considerably changed.
The right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South, who speaks with great authority as a former Home Secretary, did not get it quite right when he said that he wanted to bring the Security Service under the law. The fact is that the Security Service has always been under law. The question is whether the law is enforceable. That the Security Service has always been under the law has been repeatedly stated in the courts. It was stated by Lord
Denning in the Profumo inquiry. It was stated by Sir John Donaldson, the Master of the Rolls, in an important
judgment in the Wright case—the Attorney-General v.The Guardian. Parliament has been considering whether we are changing the situation in a way that strengthens and enhances individual liberties by statutory means or whether we are stemming the effectiveness of the control over the operations of the Security Service.
In many ways, the present position is safer than that which the Bill provides. In the case of a transgression by the Security Service, the citizen has the right to take his case to the courts. The position was well spelt out by Sir John Donaldson. In the case to which I have referred, he said:
It may be that the time has come when Parliament should regularise the position of the service. It is certainly a tenable view. The alternative view which is equally tenable is that the public interest is better served by leaving members of the service liable to prosecution for any breach of the law at the instance of a private individual or a public prosecuting authority but may expect that prosecuting authorities will exercise a wise discretion and that in an appropriate case the Attorney General would enter a nolle prosequi justifying his action to Parliament if necessary.
He went on:
It is not for me to form or express any view on which is the most appropriate course to adopt in the interest of the security of the nation and the maintenance of the rule of law.
The most troubling aspect of Ministers' interventions in our debates has been their unwillingness to address the important point about the maintenance of the rule of law. If the rule of law means anything, it must mean some

certainty in knowing the difference between what is permissible and what is impermissible. The Bill does not provide for that, because its definitions are imprecise. Above all, it does not define the function of the Security Service. In a sense, that did not matter in a common law situation. If a security officer transgressed, bugged or burgled his way around the country, he could have been taken to court. That is no longer to be the position. A complaint will now go through the new statutory procedure, which rules out appeal to the court. A security officer has a narrower defence for a wrongdoing than he had before the introduction of the Bill.

Mr. Rees: I concede that point. It is not for me to defend the Government's position, but I thought that one reason the Government had moved was to deal with those who had burgled their way through London without a warrant—those who had broken the law.

Mr. Maclennan: That is undoubtedly the case, but if a member of the Security Service is argued, or found by the tribunal or the commissioner. to have acted contrary to the provisions of the statute, in that the warrant was defective in some way, that is final. Under clause 5(4), there can be no appeal to any court if the matter has been considered by the tribunal or the commissioner. That is cutting the rights of the citizen.
Far from congratulating the Home Secretary, as he invited us to do at the conclusion of his speech, we should take strong issue with the narrowing of citizens' rights in the manner which the Bill provides. It is deeply disturbing. I would not have been disturbed if the Bill had defined its terms and the functions of the service in a clear and not so all-embracing manner. Once again, when he was considering what is meant by the protection of national security, the Home Secretary said that everybody knew what it meant and that the phrase appeared in several statutes. He said that we must rely upon him or his successors. He said that the language of the Bill is as clear and as unequivocal as possible. Merely to use the term "national security" and treat it as though its meaning were pellucid is to treat hon. Members as though they were innocents abroad. The phrase is capable of being interpreted by a Home Secretary in many different ways.
It is not correct to suggest, as did the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) said in an intervention during the speech of the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), that the phrase is defined by the particularisations which appear in the clause merely as examples. The Bill gives considerable power to be exercised by the Security Service in the issuance of warrants by a Home Secretary, or by any other Secretary of State if the Home Secretary is not available, regardless of knowledge of the matter. Such great powers cut the freedoms of our citizens, and they should not exist with so little control.
The Bill's provisions on supervision have been discussed at this and other stages of the Bill's passage. The provisions for supervision of the issuance of warrants by a commissioner, who is a man appointed by the Home Secretary and holding high judicial office, do not cover more than they purport to cover. They do not cover more than the issuance of warrants and the handling of complaints, as set out in schedule 1. They do nothing to strengthen the effectiveness of the scrutiny of the Seem-Ay Services to protect it, as many hon. Members would wish,


from the kind of outrage of which former servants such as Bettaney were guilty as recently as three years ago. We are doing nothing to strengthen the Security Service. We are doing nothing to increase the protection of the individual from abuses of power. We are not providing a proper channel of appeals.
Some of these matters are likely to go before the European Court of Human Rights. The Bill is a response to pressure. It may be argued that there is an inadequate domestic remedy. The Bill is not an improvement on the law as it stands. For that reason, I shall vote against it.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) was right to remind the House that the Bill began its parliamentary journey with a quite substantial measure of good will on both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman certainly supported it. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) seemed to make a genuflection in the direction of its support. I certainly gave it my willing vote on Second Reading. But all that good will has been disdainfully dissipated by a charade of a two-day Committee stage.
I call it a charade because, during its proceedings, my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench systematically flouted the usual parliamentary conventions, to the extent of completely refusing to accept or even reconsider in another place a single amendment, irrespective of its merits. In blunt language, the Bill was given the bum's rush by the Government. The Home Secretary will live to regret it.
One good reason is that, instead of removing the Security Service from the arena of political controversy—surely we all want that—the Bill leaves it in the crucible of political and parliamentary argument and debate. The desirable objective of taking the Security Service away from political controversy could have been achieved if there had emerged, as there started to, a broad cross-party consensus that the Bill was on the right lines.
The Home Secretary's Third Reading speech mysteriously kept concentrating on what he called the deep divisions in the House that caused him to realise that there was no hope of solidarity on this Bill. In fact, any fair-minded observer who listened to the Committee would have been amazed at the genuine degree of agreement between such diverse sections of the House as my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Mr. Allason), for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and myself on one side, and the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), the right hon. Members for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) and for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and several others I could name, on the other, all of whom seemed to be moving broadly in the same direction. It was my hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench who were left in far from splendid isolation.
Having started with this consensus on his side, the Home Secretary steadily and inexorably lost it as the Bill progressed, because of his intransigence. It takes a remarkable parliamentary footballer to begin with the ball at his feet in the goal mouth with no goalkeeper in sight and, instead of scoring, to dribble the ball all the way back to his own goal mouth with most of the players, including

those on his own side, shouting "foul", "offside" and "Let's have a replay." The analogy of football is not wholly invalid. A replay of the Bill is exactly what is likely to happen in the not-too-distant future. I cannot predict who will force it; perhaps, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said, it will be the European Court of Human Rights picking a quarrel with the sweeping definitions of the functions of the Security Service in clause 1. Perhaps it will be the next scandal to emerge in the Security Service.
This is a world in which Murphy's famous law—if something can go wrong, it will—seems to apply in spades, and it will not be too long before trouble boils up. Perhaps it will be a future House of Commons with a majority of one sort or another of such slenderness that the current buzz phrase, "elective dictatorship", will not be applicable. Whatever the cause, the argument about the statutory basis for the Security Service will be back on the political agenda soon, because the Bill has been left in the category of unfinished business as a result of Home Office ministers failing to accommodate any point of view other than their own.
As far as Parliament is concerned it is, to put it mildly, unusual for a major Bill to pass all its stages without amendments of any kind, especially when amendments have been moved in a responsible and constructive fashion by major parliamentary figures such as a former Home Secretary, a former Foreign Secretary, a former Defence Secretary and others with experience in this area.
The Bill cried out for amendments, not only in places in which policy differences prevail, such as oversight, but in quite small non-controversial areas. For example, when we came to the part of the Bill that dealt with warrants, I thought that my hon. Friend the Minister of State was left with egg all over his face. To mix my nutritional metaphors, he made a complete Horlicks of his explanation of why the Bill did not follow the much more precise and accurate rules on warrants in the Interception of Communications Act 1985. The arguments about a staff counsellor, which I was able to draft in the exact words of the Prime Minister, were rejected on the baffling ground that there was no need for such an amendment, even though the Prime Minister thought it necessary to introduce such a staff counsellor by means of a written parliamentary answer.
As these amendments were rejected by my hon. Friend the Minister of State in that tone of unconvincing bonhomie which reminded me of a minor character in John Le Canes novels, Roddy Martindale, I asked myself what we are to make of all this in the cold light of day. Has the Home Office grown so complacent that it sticks up a notice on Queen Anne's Gate saying, "No hawkers, no gypsies, no unsolicited circulars and no parliamentary amendments"? Or has the Home Secretary suddenly moved his Department into a fairyland in which perfect legislators bring forward perfect legislation and they all live happily ever after in a silver-lined cloud of self-satisfaction with no amendments?
Perhaps we should take a more sombre view of all this and remind ourselves of Lord Acton's famous aphorism about power tending to corrupt, and reflect that it may be coming true in a House of Commons in which there is a majority of over 100. Either way, it is bad for Parliament and for Government, and perhaps bad because, when the Official Secrets Bill comes to the Floor of the House we shall be given the same contemptuous treatment—no


amendments accepted because they are all terrified of a Report stage. That would be a disgrace to parliamentary proceedings.
I solemnly warn my right hon. and hon. Friends that if they think that they have had trouble so far on this Bill—it has been good-natured—they will have much worse trouble if they take the same haughty line.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I did not quite catch my hon. Friend's reference to Roddy whoever-it-was, but perhaps he will give me chapter and verse from the Le Carre novel in due course so that I can seek to identify myself. May I reassure my hon. Friend—I hope to bring a smile to his face—that my right hon. Friend and myself have already tabled at least one amendment to the Official Secrets Bill, so that will ensure a Report stage on that measure.

Mr. Aitken: I am delighted to give a smile to my hon. Friend. If we are to have a Report stage on the Official Secrets Bill, that is a great deal better than has happened on this Bill.
I shall return now to the Security Service Bill, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know that you wish us to stick closely to Third Reading rules. Two areas remain in which the cauldron of political controversy will continue to bubble because of the Government's short-sighted refusal to accept any amendments. The first relates to the functions of the service and to the definitions of those functions. At first glance, many of us felt that clause 1(2) implied that the Security Service would in future limit its activities to espionage, sabotage, terrorism and attempts to overthrow parliamentary democracy.
Even my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) fell neatly into that trap, not having attended the Committee stage to any great extent, when he thought that the clause somehow defined the activities of the Security Service and limited it to those provisions. However, he was absolutely wrong, as we discovered in Committee. Of course, we wanted a hopeful sign that the Security Service would no longer engage in dubious fishing expeditions of the kind that Mr. George Wigg persuaded the service to indulge in when he was in some way in charge of the Security Service in the 1960s, with results that were at times deeply unfair to some of his colleagues in this House. In fact, it meant no such thing.
The phrase "the protection of national security" has never been defined. It can be extended far beyond the mere illustrations given in clause 1(2). That is a grave defect in the legislation and one to which the House will undoubtedly wish to return.
Secondly, the oversight argument will not go away. We had a full day's debate on that, so there is no need to go over old ground. However, it was illustrative of the Home Secretary's approach to the oversight case that in his reply last Monday he made no reference to the outstanding speech by the right hon. Member for Devonport. Indeed, my right hon. Friend made only glancing references of the most cursory nature to the speeches made by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South, by my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay, by the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland, and by many other hon. Members. That was a surprising and uncharacteristic departure from the usual courtesies of a wind-up speech, especially when there was no real pressure of time.
My right hon. Friend's failure to recognise that the call for oversight will only redouble in volume and intensity when the story of the next Blunt, Bettaney or Burgess hits the fan-as it surely will-is a great mistake. A "no oversight" Home Secretary, like a "no amendment" Home Secretary, is at best short-sighted and at worst, a fundamental error of judgment.
The Bill could have been a parliamentary success story for the Home Secretary, with congratulations from all sides for crafting a Bill that would stand the test of time and put the Security Service on a secure footing. Instead the Bill should be retitled the Security Service (Temporary Provisions) Bill. It will not last and that is why I shall vote against its Third Reading.

Mr. David Winnick: I am pleased that the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) will vote against it the Bill and I hope that he will be joined by other Conservative Members. Like my hon. Friends, I shall vote against it because there has been no improvement since Second Reading.
As it stands, the Bill makes only cosmetic changes. It provides no effective remedy against the serious complaints made against the Security Service and we should not forget that we are so concerned because of the complaints and disclosures made by a former official of MI5, Cathy Massiter. No one has denied that she was speaking the truth. There have been no Government allegations that she was lying. As I have said before—I repeat it today—I believe that Cathy Massiter is an honourable person. By the manner in which she revealed matters which had gone on, but which should not have gone on, she has performed a public duty and a public service and we should be very pleased that we have people like her—

Mr. Allason: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Cathy Massiter's allegations were investigated—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. We are now straying from Third Reading. That is a result of my tolerance in allowing the hon. Member for Walsall, North (M r. Winnick) to stray so far. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would come back to the matter before us.

Mr. Winnick: The need for a security service, whether it is MI5 or a similar organisation, was never questioned during the course of the Bill. Everyone recognises that it is necessary to have an organisation for the protection of national security. That is set out in the appropriate clause, clause 1(2). The need for national security and related matters and the need for the defence of the realm is recognised in all parts of the House. We know what goes on in dictatorships, but it is unlikely that there is any democracy that does not provide for some sort of protection and does not have some sort of security service. It is the other part of the clause that gives rise to a great deal of controversy.
I am certainly in favour of opposing anything that would overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy. As I said repeatedly in Committee, I am keen that our democratic system should be permanent. I would be the last person to do anything or be in favour of anything that would undermine it. Equally, I am against targeting and spying on those who are active in organisations such as the


Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament or in campaigns for civil liberties and who have no wish whatever to overthrow or undermine parliamentary democracy.
One of my reasons for voting against the Bill was echoed by the hon. Member for Thanet, South. Protest, advocacy and dissent are the very life blood of parliamentary democracy. That is the basic difference between a democracy such as ours and a dictatorship. In a democracy one can protest, advocate and dissent if one disagrees with the Government of the day and one will not be penalised, put away or punished in any way. Some hon. Members have spoken about the reasons for the Bill, and the name of Wright has been put forward.
I wonder whether we would have such a Bill if it had not been for the complaint brought by my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) and Patricia Hewitt to the European Court of Human Rights. No doubt when that case is before the court the Government's answer will be that some improvements have taken place, and they will give the Bill as an illustration of the progress that has been made.
Clause 2(2)(b) says:
that the Service does not take any action to further the interests of any political party.
On the face of it we should be quite content about that, because it is obviously right that the Security Service should not further the interests of any political party. The same words, more or less, were in the Maxwell Fyfe directive of 1952. It was described at the time as a Security Service that would be completely politically impartial. How seriously can we take the claim of political impartiality when we know that the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), when he was Secretary of State for Defence, decided to ask the Security Service to target CND? What kind of political impartiality existed then? Did the right hon. Member for Henley take into account the Maxwell Fyfe directive, or did he say to himself that there should not be any distinction between the Security Service—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. More than once, I have had to remind hon. Members that debate on Third Reading is very limited. I regret having to remind the hon. Member for Walsall, North yet again.

Mr. Winnick: I defer to your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was speaking about clause 2(2)(b), which says quite clearly
that the service does not take any action to further the interests of any political party.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has widened the debate too much.

Mr. Winnick: I was trying to illustrate that that was already in the Maxwell Fyfe directive of 1952 and did not prove at the time the point that we should like to see proven.
I said that the basic difference between a democracy such as ours and a dictatorship is that in a democracy protest, advocacy and debate are permitted and are part of everyday life. Like my hon. Friends and me, many believe that such views and actions should not be undermined by the Security Service. I believe strongly that Parliament itself should be able to scrutinise the Scrutiny Service. No

doubt, as the hon. Member for Thanet, South said, the debate about that will not be ended by the passing of the Bill.
National security should not be a disguise for narrow political interests, or scoundrels or rogues, be they those like Wright or any similar person, to undermine the parliamentary democracy and civil liberties about which we are concerned and which we are determined to defend. The matters that have come to light must cause us the maximum amount of concern and disquiet. What a pity that, throughout the debates on the Bill, neither the Home Secretary nor the Minister could bring himself to admit that mistakes and abuses have occurred. It would have been better if they had frankly admitted that. That is yet another reason why we are so concerned about the Bill and why we do not believe that its enactment will avoid the mistakes and serious abuses that have occurred in the past.
I am sure that the Secretary of State wishes that MI5 was not such a source of continuing political controversy. I understand the feeling in Government circles, and certainly on the part of the Home Secretary, that MI5 should not have such a high political profile. If the Bill had been amended, MI5 would have a far lower political profile in the future, and it would not be the subject of so much continuing controversy. I regret that, since the Bill's introduction, we have not been able to make the necessary changes and reforms that would have largely avoided the abuses about which I have spoken. Unfortunately, the Government were not willing to concede anything, having introduced the Bill for the reasons I have explained.
No matter how much the Home Secretary and other Ministers hope that this matter will go away, MI5 will continue to be the subject of controversy. The Opposition will raise the matter whenever we have the opportunity because we strongly believe in democracy and civil liberties. I have already said that it is necessary to have a Security Service, but one that is accountable to Parliament. That is the essence, I believe, of a parliamentary democracy, and I regret the Government's attitude throughout the proceedings on the Bill.

Mr. Rupert Allason: In my misplaced optimism—call it inexperience or perhaps ignorance—I rather hoped and assumed that, in Committee, the Government would actively pursue many of the constructive ideas put forward by both sides of the House. Nobody has a monopoly of wisdom on this subject, and I was terribly disappointed, inexperienced though I am as a parliamentarian, by the Government's attitude.
I have at least one contribution to make, which I hope will clear up the mystery created by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I think deliberately, when he rejected the opportunity to introduced parliamentary oversight. He chucked out the idea of a committee of Privy Councillors, rejected the idea of a detailed report from the commissioner and declined to take up the quite sensible suggestion to extend the role of the commissioner. Cogent examples and arguments were put before him. I could not understand why he was so unwilling to share the burden of his responsibility, particularly when other examples had been given—Canada was identified as a classic example. I now know why.
The Home Secretary said that Canada had its own solutions and we should examine the problems that face


this country. There are great parallels between the two countries. Canada endured the bombing of an Air India jet and had to take appropriate measures thereafter. Canada also has considerable loyalty problems. Security Service officers in Canada say that one of their great challenges is that Canada is such a cosmopolitan community and there is no such thing as a born Canadian. People have different backgrounds and loyalties.
What made Canada so different from the United Kingdom? What was the spike upon which the Home Secretary was determined to impale himself? It is that the Canadian intelligence community does not have a foreign intelligence gathering group. I have subsequently discovered that the advice given to him was that, if he was to give way on oversight—to allow any supervision of the Security Service—it might lead to the supervision and oversight of another organisation that successive Governments have declined to admit exists in peace time. That is the sole reason why the Home Secretary has been so obstinate. 1t is uncharacteristic of him because usually, with great courtesy, he takes—

Mr. William Cash: My hon. Friend is making a generalised point about another service. Is he saying that there is no supervision? Under the Bill, legal duties imposed upon the Secretary of State, the commissioner and the director general would be required to be assessed and interpreted by the courts. Therefore, there is supervision by judicial review if a person wants to challenge the basis on which the functions are carried out. Surely my hon. Friend recognises that.

Mr. Allason: I regret that my hon. Friend was not present during our two days in Committee. We outlined all the different opportunities for parliamentary oversight. The Home Secretary obstinately resisted this point all the way through. In essence, he said that everything was fine, there may have been one or two problems in the past and we were placing great trust in the Home Secretary. He said that he had wide shoulders and could bear that burden.
When the Home Secretary talked about the past he spoke of "ill—defined" legality. The Bill—if it does nothing else—at least gives the Security Service a cloak of legality. The pressure from both sides of the House has been not just for legality but for a measure of oversight.

Mr. Lawrence: If my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary does not wish to concede anything on oversight on the secret service because he does not want to concede oversight on another branch of the security services, will my hon. Friend say why he thinks that would be a bad reason?

Mr. Allason: My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) characterised the Home Secretary as King Canute because he opposes something that has been widely and successfully introduced around the world, in New Zealand, Australia and Canada. Sooner or later there is bound to be a measure of oversight. Those who were in their places throughout the consideration of the Bill in Committee will recall the continuing argument that there should be some improvement in the existing system.
We know that everything has not been entirely satisfactory in the past. Mention has been made of the contribution to this continuing debate of Mr. Macmillan, and his role in the Profumo affair was one of profound ignorance. He was never aware that Stephen Ward was an

agent of the Security Service. That ignorance, which has been argued for by at least one of my hon. Friends, cannot be sustained. There have been numerous incidents where it has been shown that the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have been unable to keep their finger on the day-to-day operations of the Security Service.
It has often been said that the lesson that is never learned from history is that people never learn things from history, and we know that history has a tendency to repeat itself. I have no doubt that we shall be debating these issues again with a view to having some parliamentary oversight or scrutiny, or to make the Bill acceptable to the European courts.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I do not know whether the Home Secretary was in his place on the Government Bench when the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Allason) said that Home Office Ministers behaved abominably on Monday and Tuesday of last week—they treated the House with contempt and, therefore, the country as well—because they wanted to preserve MI6 from any following investigation. The Home Secretary might want to comment on that.
I believe that that attitude of boorishness stems from the fact that they ignored the warning of Francis Pym some years ago, which was based on the size of the majority that the Tory party might gain in the then general election. He warned of what the consequences would be. We have seen this boorishness on issue after issue. The Government have treated the House with contempt. I have been a Member of this place for 20 years and never previously have I encountered the behaviour that I saw on Monday and Tuesday of last week, on an issue that to a great extent had brought both sides of the House together.
It is our concern that we have an effective secret service. We are concerned also that it is placed under proper democratic control and supervision. Faced with that concern, the Home Secretary still resisted even the mildest of amendments which were designed to introduce some supervision. The right hon. Gentleman should be warned. The people of England have not yet spoken. Incidentally, the people of Scotland have spoken, and the Government might learn a lesson from that.
This is not an isolated Bill. It is one of a series of measures that have limited freedom of speech in every possible way. That has applied to the BBC and the press, and it will be the effect of what will be the new Official Secrets Act. That legislation stems from the exposure of the security services' failure. It has arisen in part from the Wright case. Agitation for change stemmed from that issue and many others. The Government spent two foolish years dragging a senior civil servant through the courts, which humiliated him and the nation in the eyes of the world. Eventually the final decision was reached that the public interest should be taken into consideration, and that was right. Everybody expected that to happen. Unfortunately, the public interest is ignored in the Bill. The inadequacies of MI5, including those of the past, have not been properly denied by Peter Wright, and that is one of the inadequacies of the book. It is regrettable that the Government have not taken the opportunity to put the organisation under proper control.
We are concerned with the failure to bring the secret service—MI5 and the other security services—under


proper democratic control. The seriousness of that failure is magnified when we consider the looseness of the definition. Opportunities were presented, not to alter the guts of the Bill, and MI5's role, as the Secretary of State defined it, by adding words such as "protest" and "dissent". The same would have been true if what the Home Secretary had said had been put in legislative form. Why in heaven's name should he come to the House, make a speech saying what the Bill is about and then flatly refuse to put what he says into legislative form? That is but another example of the Government's boorishness.
We are witnessing the end of the sovereignty of Parliament, and we are halfway through the sovereignty of the Executive. Its sovereignty has increased, is increasing and ought to be diminished. We are put at enormous risk when we allow that to happen.
We are told that the Bill is based on the Maxwell Fyfe directive, but it is infinitely weaker. I understand that he jotted his five points down on a napkin when he was away from the office for lunch for an hour. In regard to political control, he said that it was essential that the Security Service should be kept absolutely free of any political bias or influence and that nothing should be done that might lend colour to any suggestion that it is concerned with the interests of any section of the community or with any matter other than the defence of the realm. The Home Secretary claims to have incorporated that argument in the Bill, but he has not—he has weakened it significantly. Clause 2(2)(b) provides:
that the Service does not take any action to further the interests of any political party.
The thrust of Maxwell Fyfe has been thrown out of the window.
We do not believe that the security services are entirely the paid servants of the Conservative party, even though some of their actions might imply that they are. Those of us with experience at the other end of the process are in no doubt, however, about the bias of their thinking. I do not know of any example of MI5 bugging the boardrooms of directors in the City. We know of their bugging people who want more democracy in Britain, or want to change our war policy, or who want to demonstrate on the streets in support of their jobs. We do not yet know of any time when boardrooms have been bugged—

Mr. Winnick: Or the so-called Freedom Association.

Mr. Buchan: Indeed. We were presented with an opportunity to bring the service under control. The Home Secretary says that we cannot copy Canada because it is different, or America because it has a different political structure, or France or Germany. We are now the only western democracy which has failed to bring its Security Service under any kind of supervisory control. We are not arguing that we should copy the example of others. What we want, and what the Bill fails to provide, is some democratic supervision.
Resisting that, when the Franks committee dealt with a much more sensitive situation, is an insult to every hon. and right hon. Member. The Home Secretary is saying that only the Home Secretary can be entrusted with the information, and that it can be reported to the Prime Minister. He is wiping off 649 other hon. Members, including you, Mr. Speaker. We cannot leave supervision

with the Executive—it has too much power. That power should be diminished. We should make a start on that later this week when we discuss the Official Secrets Bill.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: We are witnessing, not the break-up of parliamentary democracy as we know it, but a number of hon. Members going right over the top. Apart from possibly, the hon. Members for Paisley, South (Mr. Buchan) and for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who appeared to complain that we are making illegal something which he shamefully says went on in the past—namely, that the Security Service concerned itself with the interests of a political party—which is an odd way to behave when we are changing the law for the better, one can conclude from the debate that there is a fair amount of common ground.
Hon. Members on both sides agree the objectives of the Bill. They are to establish a clear framework of statute, defining in law the functions of the service and the responsibilities of Ministers, and providing for the first time a statutory remedy for members of the public who have complaints about the security services. This is a recognition of the public anxiety inside and outside Parliament and a substantial step forward in protecting society generally and the rights of citizens who are involved in the Security Service in particular.
In general, the criticism seems to have been that much more should be done to provide an oversight which is completely independent of the Government, more accountability and a more dependable remedy for those wronged. Hon. Members have called for more definition of functions—a wider definition and more functions. Only the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) seems to think that the Bill provides too much and that we should remain as we are. He says that clause 5(4) means that there is no longer a recourse to the courts. It does not mean any such thing. It cannot. The Bill provides for new institutions—the tribunal and the commissioner—and the restriction governs only them. The provision does not mean that security matters cannot be raised in the courts as they can at present. It means that the decisions of the tribunal and commissioner alone shall not be questioned by any court. Obviously, it would be remarkable if any other provision were made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) took me to task for not agreeing with what he said about the meaning of national security. He says that the Bill should spell out in even more detail what is meant by such understandable words as espionage, terrorism, sabotage, parliamentary democracy and political, industrial and violent means. Why should it be more specific? What more would be achieved? We could go on for ever defining ever more closely and still the courts would be asked for an interpretation of some sub-meaning of some other sub-definition of some general word used in the clause. I do not know what my hon. Friend is trying to do. Perhaps he is trying to whittle away completely the protections enshrined in the Bill, with which most people broadly agree.
Are the calls for more and wider definition practical? In all the circumstances, are they sensible? My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has resisted all the blandishments, however persuasively and enchantingly


they have been offered, and I am sure he is right, because two problems of substance lie in the way of the bold reformers.
First, we are talking about a secret service. Strange as it may seem, its activities must remain secret or there is no point in them. One does not have to speak evilly against one's colleagues as unreliable safeguarders of secrets, as people who can harbour malice, as people capable of political bias, or as being incompetent, or because they chatter to journalists, perhaps in the most convivial circumstances, and journalists piece together bits of information and reach conclusions. Such observations would be wholly unworthy and out of place in this House. But in reality, the more people who know a secret, the more likely it is to get out. That is the most important reason why a Select Committee with oversight, or even a Select Committee of Privy Councillors, would be inappropriate.
The second problem is volume. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South requested that the Bill should contain more reference to what should be done in a case such as Bettaney's. There should be more consideration of recruitment, training and functions. So much goes on in the secret service, at such a rate and with such complexity, that it would be well nigh impossible for any Member of Parliament to follow such matters with the closeness that they require and not put his foot in it. Such matters are of particular importance because they often affect the very lives of the people concerned. It follows that Parliament is not the most efficient or appropriate body to supervise the Security Service, and that the Government are entirely right to resist the amendments.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) said that the conduct of the Franks committee on the Falklands proved that parliamentary scrutiny of a substantial nature could work, but, for a start, few Members have the integrity, good sense and reliability of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees), who can be entirely trusted not to open his mouth—perhaps in a bar, under pressure from his colleagues or under any other kind of pressure—and vouchsafe any of the secrets that he has learnt.
Moreover, the Franks committee was a single inquiry into a single subject, which was under the eyes of the press for as long as it endured. That is not the same as continuing supervision by a continuing body. The eyes of Parliament and the media are not constantly on the functioning of such a body. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) even suggested that the Franks committee was not given all the information, in which case setting up such a committee would be a waste of time.
It is obvious that no form of oversight can guarantee no errors, but there is some sense in having as much oversight as is reasonably possible consistent with the need for secrecy and for a body that is more reliable, because more constant, than any body of Members of Parliament can be. To the question, "Is there some serious deficiency in the oversight protections in the Bill?" I have to answer that I can see none.
It is ridiculous to suppose that the additional methods of oversight in the Bill do not close the gap considerably between the free hand that it appears that the Security Service used to enjoy and an enforceable obligation to behave correctly. Not only is there the director-general, with a statutory duty to ensure that the rules are followed—and why should we assume that such people are

incompetent, malicious or unable to follow the requirements laid on them?—but there is the Secretary of State, who must authorise all the warrants. There is also the Commissioner, a senior judge who can review the Secretary of State's use of his authority. The Secretary of State must then report to the Prime Minister, and the report must be laid before Parliament.
There is also a tribunal consisting of three to five of the most distinguished kind of people in our society—lawyers, the most dependable, reliable, important and splendid people—to receive and consider complaints about the activities of the Security Service. They will have power to order the ceasing of inquiries, to order the destruction of records and to order compensation. It is wholly unrealistic to conclude that the Government could reasonably do more than they are doing to strengthen accountability, without at the same time threatening the secrecy that is the essence of the secret service.
Opposition Members in particular have consistently shown concern about the member of the Security Service who cannot complain about any wrongdoing that he or she sees within the service—the whistleblower. That whistleblower may be prosecuted, under the Official Secrets Act, if he complains in a way that is against the interests of his superiors. I can understand that concern, but the breach of the Official Secrets Act will involve doing something "without authority". The whistleblower can go to the staff counsellor, who is an independent body set up with the particular end in mind of helping the whistleblower by giving that authority. If he does not want to do that, he can still go to the Minister. If he does not want to do that, he can still go to the Secretary of State. If he does not want to do that, he can still go to his Member of Parliament.
His Member of Parliament can go to the Prime Minister, and his Member of Parliament can say to the Prime Minister-I do not believe that the Prime Minister would not listen to any hon. Member who said this to her—"I have a constituent who is very concerned about something that has happened to him as a servant of the state in the Secret Service, which was grossly wrong arid improper and may be criminal. Will you give him the authority to tell you what it is?" It is unthinkable that that authority would not be given. If that authority were given, there would be no breach of the Official Secrets Act. The concern, therefore, for the whistleblower, while it may be in the past have been justified in some cases, need not be justified when one bears in mind the functions that we as Members of Parliament in this place can legitimately perform. I believe that that criticism of the vulnerability of the whistleblower is therefore unfounded.
I continue with this thought. One's attitude towards this Bill depends upon one's attitude to the Security Service. If one believes that it is a wild animal to be caged, to be watched at every moment of the day by keepers, arid that it cannot possibly work unless Members of Parliament have something to do with it—dabbling and poking away in case this animal escapes from the cage;and devours the innocent public—of course it is an unsatisfactory Bill.
But is this not the closer approximation to the truth? The Security Service is a body of thoroughly decent people, using their ingenuity to protect us from espionage, subversion, terrorism and threats to the economic well-being of the United Kingdom. It is not perfect, but it operates as near perfectly as any human machine dealing


in secrecy can. The public appreciate that, even if Opposition Members do not. During all the discussions, I have received no more than two letters opposing this legislation, from which I conclude that the people who sent me here do not distrust the Security Service or this Bill. Nor do they wish to see the Service opened up to the eyes of the world.

Mr. Tony Banks: I found the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) acutely depressing. It is no wonder that not many of his constituents have written to him and protested because, frankly, it would have been a waste of time for them to have done so. I felt that it was depressing, because, once again, the hon. and learned Gentleman-like a number of Conservative Members this evening-has effectively sold Members of Parliament short. He said that we are not responsible enough to be exercising some form of accountable control over the Security Service.

Mr. Whitney: rose—

Mr. Banks: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I shall be short and sharp on this point, which is a reasonably good description of myself.
I believe that the Bill, unamended, creates as many problems as it seeks to resolve. I do not think that it has sincerely sought to resolve many of those problems. It is vague in its definition. We have heard that said in good speeches from the decent Tories that remain. I pay tribute from this vantage point to the hon. Members for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) and for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) for at least speaking out for freedom, because there are not many Conservative Members who are prepared to do that.
The Bill is vague in its definition. It is a lawyer's paradise—perhaps that is why the hon. and learned Member for Burton is so enthusiastic for it to reach the statute book. The definitions in the Bill mean precisely what the Home Secretary means them to say. Therefore, that means that this Bill could have been drafted by Lewis Carroll, because it will leave MI5 in Wonderland. It gives inadequate safeguards to our people. The Home Secretary ventured to give us a number of proposals that he said would answer our fears, but, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have recounted, when we sought to push him to include those safeguards in the Bill, which would then go some way to meet our objections, he steadfastly refused.
We all know that what is said on Second Reading, in Committee or what appears in the Official Report, will have no bearing or influence on any judges who are subsequently called upon to interpret the Act. Therefore, the words of the Home Secretary were not worth the breath he used to utter them.
In the end, MI5 will be left as a barely regulated state within a dangerously centralised state—that is the way the Government are leading us. There is no chance of a judicial review of the issuing of warrants. I find that totally unacceptable. The idea is that we cannot trust the Commons, we cannot trust the courts and, in the end, we

cannot trust the people. Whom can we trust—the Home Secretary of the day and no one else? A bunch of apologists behind the Home Secretary?

Mr. Cash: rose—

Mr. Banks: No, I will not give way.
I do not believe that the freedoms of our country are safe in the hands of Conservative Members or in the hands of the Home Secretary. I consider that this is a weasel Bill full of weasel words and, in that sense, it is appropriate that it should be passed by a weasel Government.

Mr. Bob Cryer: I shall speak for no more than five minutes, but I should like to start with a correction to my speech of 16 January at column 103. I implied that Dr. Adrian Tibbetts had been entrapped by a British National party member, Mr. Peter Maranchenko, in conjunction with the special branch. In fact Dr. Tibbetts was at home and had nothing to do with this matter. It was his mother and father, Mr. and Mrs. Tibbetts, who were entrapped. I want to make that absolutely clear.
That correction also illustrates the value of having such things on some sort of record that can be challenged by the people about whom comments are made. If comments are made behind closed doors the consequence, just like the consequences of the Bill, is that there is no opportunity for those comments to be challenged. Such remarks can stick. If files are drawn up by members of the security services, without any democratic check by this place, which would provide some accountability, such a stigma can grow and fester without the possibility of correction.
One reason why I shall vote against this shoddy little measure is that there is no definition as to who can issue warrants to burgle. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) repeated the name of the Home Secretary on several occasions—as have other hon. Members—but the truth of the matter is that the legislation does not give power to the Home Secretary because the power to issue warrants is given to any Secretary of State—ten, 12 or however many there might happen to be. Those warrants to carry out a serious criminal act do not have to be in writing to be undertaken.
This is a shoddy piece of legislation that will not easily fasten round the neck of the Home Secretary. He does not even have the responsibility that is normally ascribed to Secretaries of State. That lack of responsibility was brought out only in the debate in this House. The House was mistaken to allow the Committee stage to be taken on the Floor of the House. It would have been far more effective if consideration had been undertaken in a Committee upstairs because there would have been much more time and much more analysis of the reasons for the Government putting forward the various clauses.
People describe the security services as undertaking heroic deeds. It is possible that individuals may do so and may have their lives put at peril. If that is the case, they are heroic, but we also know that, by the very nature of their job, members of the security services must lie, cheat and deceive. To allow that to take place with the added authority of a warrant to burgle, issued by the Secretary of State without any accountability, is to put serious power into the hands of people who have the ability to lie and cheat, allowing them to burgle and even to kill, if accounts in various newspapers have been accurate in the past.
That is a heady combination. Democratic accountability is a tried, tested and practised means of ensuring that the heady mixtures which the security services can distill behind closed doors are held in check. Democracy is about checking things. The Bill does not do that and that is why I hope that hon. Members will vote against it tonight.

Mr. Stuart Randall: One thing that became apparent during the Committee stage of the Security Service Bill was the yawning gap between the legislature and the Executive on this important issue. Quite frankly, it appears that the Government are contemptous of the House of Commons. That contempt manifested itself in the fact that the Home Secretary has ignored the will of the House on issues which are fundamental to the operation of our national democracy and the protection of the civil liberties and basic freedoms of people in this country.
The Bill has been rushed through the House of Commons by the Government deliberately in such a way as to minimise any discussion and consultation. The rigidity of the Home Secretary in not conceding fundamental points that are important to hon. Members on both sides of the House was partly aimed at avoiding a Report stage. That was designed to stifle full and open discussion on the legislative framework in which the Security Service should operate in future.
One important consequence of the Government's appalling attitude is that the Security Service, a very powerful and insular organisation which conducts some of its business outside the law of the land, is being allowed to continue its operations without any form of effective democratic accountability. It will continue with inadequate restrictions on it in regard to possible abuses of the civil liberties and freedoms of the British people. It is a very sad picture, and when in future we talk about Britain being a democracy, we should think about the way in which the Government have dealt with the Bill. In my view, the Government verged quite dangerously on being anti-democratic.
Another thing that became clear in the early stages of the Bill is that the existing system of so-called parliamentary accountability is totally inadequate. The arrangement is based on the Home Secretary being inside the barrier of secrecy and the understanding that he should monitor the Security Service on behalf of Parliament. When we ask questions about the Security Service, more often than not we are told that information cannot be made available for security reasons. The upshot is that Parliament has not a clue as to what is going on.
In reality, I believe that the Home Secretary does not always know what is going on in any depth and we all rely on the permanent secretaries and the chiefs of MI5 to operate the service without any effective external scrutiny. I believe that that arrangement has been rejected by many of our allies because they believe that external scrutiny and accountability is necessary as a safeguard against abuse, corruption and inefficiency. More positively, however, experience in these countries has shown that the security and intelligence services operate much better when there is some external oversight.
Our debates have also shown that the Home Secretary—I should add that I am talking not just about this Home Secretary but about previous ones too—does not seem to

be interested in what is going on within the Security Service. They seem to have given up trying to counter the influence of the M15 senior management and the permanent secretaries. That is a strong statement. 1 notice that the Home Secretary commented that that was based on—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the motion relating to the Security Service Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Lightbown]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be read the Third time.

Mr. Randall: I was commenting on Cmnd. 8787, the Falkland Islands review.
What is the solution? At the moment we have scales—
with all the permanent secretaries and the MI5 chiefs on one side and the Home Secretary, almost on his own, on the other side. As we know, the Home Secretary is busy with a huge range of responsibilities and has little spare time. Also, he does not have under his control a structure that would enable him to formulate policy to counter all the influences that are weighted against him. The answer, therefore, is to put Parliament on the same side of the scales as the Home Secretary.
If the Home Secretary were properly accountable to Parliament—the Labour party believes that a Select
Committee is the best mechanism for achieving that accountability—the pressures from Parliament would serve to bring more balance than is possible under the existing arrangement. The Home Secretary would have more clout over the MI5 establishment than he has at the moment because both he and MI5 would feel obliged to respond to parliamentary pressures. With this approach, I believe that everyone wins—M IS, the Home Secretary and Parliament.
As for the duration of debate, two main areas of policy were considered during the Committee stage. The first was accountability, both of the Security Service and of the Home Secretary. Essentially, it was all about the best mechanism to achieve better accountability. The second main area of debate related to protecting civil liberties, along the lines proposed when new clause 4 was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick). It proposed that nothing in the Act should be done that undermined the right of protest, advocacy or dissent. Amendment No. 47 contained the same phrase but it was more specific and limited because it contained a definition of threats to national security. However, it permitted people to take part in protest, advocacy or dissent.
To return to accountability, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) moved new clause 73, which advocated that the Security Service should come under the scrutiny of the Select Committee but that it should remain under the authority of the Secretary of State. New clause 5 was tabled by the Labour party to illustrate the scope of the Select Committee.
When he commented on new clause 5, I believe that the Home Secretary showed a terrific lack of faith and trust in the Members of Parliament who would serve on the proposed Select Committee. He also demonstrated the Prime Minister's lack of confidence in being able to select 12 Members of Parliament—just six from either side of the House—who would be sufficiently reliable and trust


worthy to serve on the Select Committee. The Home Secretary thinks that it is impossible to select six Members of Parliament from either side of the House who could be trusted not to leak secret information. It seems also that the Home Secretary believes that it is impossible—

Mr. Whitney: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is not the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) continuing the debate that we had in Committee instead of taking part in a Third Reading debate?

Mr. Speaker: That is correct. I was contemplating that very matter a moment ago. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall) must stick to Third Reading and not go through amendments that have already been debated in Committee, but not made.

Mr. Randall: I am commenting on what is in the Bill, not on what we would like to have in it.
Nevertheless, the Home Secretary showed a lack of faith in hon. Members being able to be relied on to suppress the publication of information via a Select Committee that would be against the national interest. Frankly, I cannot see why hon. Members are supposed to be such a potential threat to the security and wellbeing of the country, as so many of them become Foreign Secretaries, Home Secretaries, Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland, and Defence Secretaries. Added to that list are the Ministers of State in each Department. All hon. Members with office must be trusted with secret information, as part of their day-to-day responsibilities.
According to the Government's arguments, when an hon. Member becomes a member of the Government, he or she suddenly undergoes some sort of physical or mental change that mysteriously makes them less of a security threat. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) actually agreed that a metamorphosis takes place when an hon. Member becomes a member of the Government—that he or she suddenly becomes safer and more reliable as soon as the new appointment is announced.
That is a load of nonsense. I cannot accept that a Select Committee is unworkable on the ground that hon. Members cannot adhere to the necessary rules of secrecy under which a Select Committee would have to work. From my experience, when people are given responsibility, they rise in stature and become—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to listen to the hon. Gentleman's speech or, if they are not wishing to listen, to leave the Chamber.

Mr. Randall: There were some long speeches in the debate. I appreciate that hon. Members want to be away. I am cutting out a lot of my speech. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) almost did a filibuster. That is why we are running late tonight.
The Home Secretary's assertion on the point about hon. Members' reliability was not only wrong but insulting. I am convinced that I could easily select six hon. Members from both sides of the House who could do the job admirably and would have the necessary personal attributes.

Mr. John Patten: Name them.

Mr. Randall: The Minister of State says, "Name them." That is for another occasion.
The Home Secretary has used the argument merely to reject amendment No. 73 and new clause 5. He was told by MI5 that it did not want any form of accountability. I am sure that the word "resist" was written in bold letters on the briefings that were provided for him.
The Home Secretary is not his own man when it comes to decisions on these matters, partly, as I have already said, because he does not have under his control a structure which enables him to formulate policy.
The other long debate in Committee was about civil liberties and, in particular, an individual's right of protest, advocacy or dissent. New clause 4 and amendment No. 47 were prominent in that debate—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. We really must not go back to the Committee stage. We are dealing with the Third Reading.

Mr. Randall: I consider that I am in order for the Third Reading.
There appeared to be an overwhelming feeling in Committee that, as currently presented, the legislation does not protect the rights of individuals to protest advocacy or dissent without the Security Service regarding such people as a threat to national security and recording that information in its files and possibly using it in a way that could be detrimental to the interests of the people.
I will not go into any detail, but I refer to Hansard of 17 January. It was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). There, the Home Secretary found it necessary to make a statement on the meaning of clause 1(3). I only wish that he had included that as part of the legislation; he would have won a great deal of good will had he done so.
The Bill is inadequate as it stands, as it will be for the courts to interpret the definitions within it. They will accept the legislation at face value, and will not look up Hansard to see what the Minister really meant. We believe that this matter is of such importance for the protection of civil liberties and the freedom of the individual that a positive statement implying a restriction on the powers of the Security Service is vital. I hope that the House of Lords will give that careful consideration.
What makes the Home Secretary think that the service will take any notice of a ministerial statement in Hansard on the meaning of the protection of national security, which is for the courts to interpret? If the service is to respond to anything, it must be to the contents of the Bill—that is important. The reason why we wanted the Bill changed to include a statement of what the Security Service is not allowed to do is not that we are against the service or anything silly like that. It is because we believe that the Bill is out of balance. How can we be confident that the senior management of MI5 has the slightest concern for protecting the civil liberties of the people of Britain? A number of scandals in the past have damaged MI5's reputation. That destroys the trust that some members of the public have in the service and can have a bad effect on staff within it.
I should have liked the Home Secretary to accept amendments Nos. 4 and 47. Many of us who appealed so passionately to him on Tuesday evening think that he should have accepted those amendments there and then.
There was unquestionably a great feeling of disappointment at the stance that the Home Secretary adopted on this important issue.
In Committee I told the House that I believed that the Security Service should adhere to three important criteria. First, it should be efficient and effective in its operations. Secondly, it should use—

Mr. Allason: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Should not the hon. Gentleman restrict his remarks to what is in the Bill rather than to what is not?

Mr. Speaker: I have already drawn attention to that. Let us get on with the debate.

Mr. Randall: I shall be as brief as I can.
It is clear that the operation of the British security and intelligence services seems to be out of step with developments taking place in other countries throughout the world. The general move seems to be towards more openness and external scrutiny. In some instances that has happened in response to abuses and corruption. At present there seems to be no inclination on the part of the Security Service to promote such changes, and it would appear that the motive behind the introduction of the Bill had nothing to do with modernising the service and making it more accountable. It had to do with meeting the requirements of the European Court of Human Rights in the context of alleged abuses of civil liberties by MI5, and the alleged lack of effective remedies for those who feel that their rights have been abused.
Reviewing the progress of the Bill, I must conclude that it is a wasted opportunity. It does little for the people of this country and little to improve the Security Service. One thing is clear, however: external scrutiny of the service is on the political agenda, and it will not go away.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I shall be as brief as I can be, consistent with replying fully to the debate. It is a great pity that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), who has been assiduous throughout our proceedings on the Bill, chose not to refer to this afternoon's Third Reading debate, but referred merely to the Committee Stage, when and where he got the chance.
All hon. Members who have addressed themselves to the issues this afternoon have said that whatever criticisms they may have of the Bill, they welcome the fact that the Security Service will be put on a statutory footing. There was one exception to that, the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), who, pursuing the unworldly approach of the Social and Liberal Democratic party, thinks that the situation is much better left alone.
This Third Reading debate has allowed the House to take stock of the principles upon which the legislation is founded. In my brief reply to the debate, I shall begin and end with the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). He addressed one particular question to me, which I must answer, about economic well-being. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary gave an example earlier which seems entirely reasonable. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook sought today to draw us into further precision about the operations that might become necessary under the provisions.
I do not think that the House really expects to go into operational details of the workings of the Security Service.

Indeed, I cannot responsibly provide or appear to be providing a list of Security Service targets, actual or hypothetical, from this Dispatch Box. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook knows well that the phrase "economic well-being" is taken from the European convention on human rights. It has been approved already by Parliament in the restrictive form in which it appears in the Bill. That provision is essential for the country's well-being.
I turn now to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) who, with my hon Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), has addressed himself to the issues although we disagree on the fundamentals of the Bill. He had made a criticism this evening of alleged pirouetting by the Minister of State at the Dispatch Box. My hon. Friend—[Interruption.]—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I appeal again to the House to listen to the speeches. If hon. Members below the Gangway wish to carry on private conversations, they should do it outside.

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills suggested that there was a logical inconsistency in the arguments used from the Dispatch Box when the issue of whether or not there should be judicial review of the warrant procedure was to be considered. He criticised the argument that to have judicial review meant that the circle would be widened. An additional reason why I believe that judicial review and intervention is not acceptable is the need for speed, which is often the case in terrorist issues in this country.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills then related that to the need, as he saw it, for no flexibility under the rule of my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to those who could and could not sign warrants. My hon. Friend seemed to think that there was an inconsistency in that line of argument. The hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) also raised that issue a moment ago. It is nonsense to say that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will be shopping around to find people to sign property warrants.
The House must recognise that my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills raised an important point because the Security Service is under the authority of my right hon. Friend and my right hon. Friend has the commissioner at his elbow. Therefore, it is absurd to suggest that my right hon. Friend will make arrangements for the signing of property warrants at any stage that would cause the commissioner to suggest that they were being put in an incorrect framework.

Mr. Cryer: rose—

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman did not give way, so I do not propose to give way.
No Home Secretary would knowingly lay himself open to findings by the commissioner that his powers had been abused in any way. It is only those Secretaries of State who are in an informed position who would take a decision of that nature and who would be approached. At an earlier stage of our proceedings, I pointed out that my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland and for Scotland have obvious responsibilities in that area.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) did not seem to understand that which my right hon.


Friend the Home Secretary said earlier in the debate, that we have sought to explain fully to the House the way in which the language of legislation must operate on the work and judgments of Ministers and on the Security Service. He was stating the obvious and I should have thought, given the long parliamentary experience of the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, that it would have been obvious to him.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has not been offering statements of ministerial intent during the debate and then expecting a court to interpret them. We all know that courts address themselves to the language of statute and not to the language of Ministers. My right hon. Friend has offered not a statement of ministerial intent but an explanation of the consequences of the language of the Bill. There is no need to fill the Bill with a vast amount of declaratory material of one sort or another.
We benefited from listening to the speech by the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) who welcomed the fact that the Bill will put the Security Service on a statutory footing. In answer to his question I can confirm that the Bill refers only to the Security Service. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman in response to his anecdote about the BBC that, as always, the fullest briefing is provided to Home Secretaries. There will be full scrutiny of the warrants provision by the commissioner.
My hon. Friends made some notable contributions. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) showed his deep understanding of the need for the Security Service. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Boscawen) put his finger on the plot mania that so often seems to run among the Members of the Left. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) clearly demonstrated the need, if we are to have a Security Service at all, to have secrets. My hon. and learned Friend was stating the obvious and I am glad that he chose to do so.
The understanding of my hon. Friends underpins the basic principles of the Bill. It places the Security Service on a statutory basis and this is a great step forward in the history of this place. It ensures that there are now new procedures for the authorisation of warrants and that those procedures will be kept under review by an independent commissioner. These steps about authority, control and review are important. As the long title of the Bill says, it establishes the criteria for investigations by a tribunal or, in some cases, by a commissioner of complaints about the service. No one can doubt that the mechanism for redress is suitable for the general public and that it will be regarded as suitable in a wider and European context.
The Bill is a significant reform and will increase and improve public confidence. It has to be seen in the context of the attitude of the Labour party to the security of Britain and to terrorism as a whole. Earlier in the debate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary contrasted the attitude of one Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who was asking for greater and greater preventive action against terrorism, with the attitude of Labour Front-Bench spokesmen to security overall. The Bill deals with the Security Service and that is why I want to give the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook one last

opportunity to withdraw the terrible slur that he cast upon the Security Service. That was referred to earlier in the debate.
Taking it in context, as reported in the Official Report, the right hon. Gentleman said—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the Minister is not going back to the debate in Committee.

Mr. Patten: This was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in his opening speech. The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook said, in what I think is one of the most shameful statements made in the House:
In truth, since the war MI5 has been one of the worst and most ridiculed security services in the western Alliance".—[Official Report, 15 December 1988; Vol. 143, c.1124.]
That is disgraceful. I give the right hon. Gentleman the opportunity to take that back. It is clear that he will not withdraw that slur, which came from the deputy leader of a party that is seeking to form a Government at some future date. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman will not take that course.
The speeches made by my right hon. and hon. Friends, with the exception of only three of my hon. Friends who did not like the Bill, show that Conservative Members are solidly behind this important reforming measure. I invite the House to give it a Third Reading.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 276, Noes 214.

Division No. 44]
[10.25 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Butler, Chris


Alexander, Richard
Butterfill, John


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Amess, David
Carrington, Matthew


Amos, Alan
Carttiss, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Cash, William


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Chapman, Sydney


Ashby, David
Chope, Christopher


Aspinwall, Jack
Churchill, Mr


Atkins, Robert
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Baldry, Tony
Conway, Derek


Batiste, Spencer
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Bellingham, Henry
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Bendall, Vivian
Cope, Rt Hon John


Benyon, W.
Cormack, Patrick


Bevan, David Gilroy
Cran, James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Critchley, Julian


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Curry, David


Body, Sir Richard
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Boswell, Tim
Day, Stephen


Bottomley, Peter
Devlin, Tim


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Dorrell, Stephen


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowis, John
Dover, Den


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Dunn, Bob


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Durant, Tony


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Dykes, Hugh


Brazier, Julian
Eggar, Tim


Bright, Graham
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Evennett, David


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Fallon, Michael


Buck, Sir Antony
Favell, Tony


Burns, Simon
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Burt, Alistair
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Butcher, John
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey






Fishburn, John Dudley
Lord, Michael


Fookes, Dame Janet
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Forman, Nigel
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McCrindle, Robert


Forth, Eric
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Fox, Sir Marcus
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Freeman, Roger
Maclean, David


French, Douglas
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fry, Peter
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Gale, Roger
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Gardiner, George
Major, Rt Hon John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Malins, Humfrey


Gill, Christopher
Mans, Keith


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maples, John


Goodhart, Sir Philip
Marland, Paul


Goodlad, Alastair
Marlow, Tony


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gow, Ian
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gower, Sir Raymond
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Mellor, David


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gregory, Conal
Miller, Sir Hal


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mills, Iain


Grist, Ian
Miscampbell, Norman


Ground, Patrick
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grylls, Michael
Mitchell, Sir David


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Moate, Roger


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hanley, Jeremy
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Hannam, John
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Morrison, Rt Hon P (Chester)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Moss, Malcolm


Harris, David
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Haselhurst, Alan
Mudd, David


Hayes, Jerry
Neale, Gerrard


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Needham, Richard


Hayward, Robert
Nelson, Anthony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neubert, Michael


Heddle, John
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nicholls, Patrick


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hind, Kenneth
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Norris, Steve


Holt, Richard
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hordern, Sir Peter
Oppenheim, Phillip


Howard, Michael
Page, Richard


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Paice, James


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Patnick, Irvine


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hunter, Andrew
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Price, Sir David


Irvine, Michael
Raffan, Keith


Irving, Charles
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jack, Michael
Rathbone, Tim


Jackson, Robert
Redwood, John


Janman, Tim
Renton, Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Rost, Peter


Key, Robert
Sackville, Hon Tom


Kilfedder, James
Scott, Nicholas


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knowles, Michael
Speller, Tony


Latham, Michael
Squire, Robin


Lawrence, Ivan
Stevens, Lewis


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Lightbown, David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Lilley, Peter
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Thornton, Malcolm





Thurnham, Peter
Wells, Bowen


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Wheeler, John


Tracey, Richard
Whitney, Ray


Tredinnick, David
Widdecombe, Ann


Trippier, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Trotter, Neville
Wilshire, David


Twinn, Dr Ian
Wolfson, Mark


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wood, Timothy


Waddington, Rt Hon David
Woodcock, Mike


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Yeo, Tim


Waldegrave, Hon William
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Walden, George
Younger, Rt Hon George


Walker, Bill (T'side North)



Waller, Gary
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ward, John
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle and


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Mr. Alan Howarth.


Watts, John





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Aitken, Jonathan
Dewar, Donald


Allason, Rupert
Dixon, Don


Allen, Graham
Dobson, Frank


Alton, David
Doran, Frank


Anderson, Donald
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Eadie, Alexander


Armstrong, Hilary
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Fatchett, Derek


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fearn, Ronald


Ashton, Joe
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Flannery, Martin


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Flynn, Paul


Barron, Kevin
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Battle, John
Foster, Derek


Beckett, Margaret
Fraser, John


Beith, A. J.
Galbraith, Sam


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Bermingham, Gerald
George, Bruce


Bidwell, Sydney
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Blair, Tony
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Blunkett, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Boateng, Paul
Gordon, Mildred


Boyes, Roland
Gould, Bryan


Bradley, Keith
Graham, Thomas


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Grocott, Bruce


Buchan, Norman
Hardy, Peter


Buckley, George J.
Harman, Ms Harriet


Caborn, Richard
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Callaghan, Jim
Haynes, Frank


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Heffer, Eric S.


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Henderson, Doug


Canavan, Dennis
Hinchliffe, David


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Holland, Stuart


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Home Robertson, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hood, Jimmy


Clay, Bob
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Clelland, David
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Howells, Geraint


Cohen, Harry
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Corbett, Robin
Ingram, Adam


Corbyn, Jeremy
Janner, Greville


Cousins, Jim
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cox, Tom
Jones, Ieuan (Ynys MÔn)


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Cummings, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Kennedy, Charles


Cunningham, Dr John
Lambie, David


Dalyell, Tam
Lamond, James


Darling, Alistair
Leadbitter, Ted


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Leighton, Ron






Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Lewis, Terry
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Loyden, Eddie
Morgan, Rhodri


McAllion, John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


McAvoy, Thomas
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


McCartney, Ian
Mullin, Chris


Macdonald, Calum A.
Murphy, Paul


McFall, John
Nellist, Dave


McKelvey, William
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


McLeish, Henry
O'Brien, William


Maclennan, Robert
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


McNamara, Kevin
Parry, Robert


McTaggart, Bob
Patchett, Terry


McWilliam, John
Pike, Peter L.


Madden, Max
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Prescott, John


Marek, Dr John
Primarolo, Dawn


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Radice, Giles


Martlew, Eric
Randall, Stuart


Maxton, John
Redmond, Martin


Meacher, Michael
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Meale, Alan
Reid, Dr John


Michael, Alun
Richardson, Jo





Robertson, George
Straw, Jack


Robinson, Geoffrey
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rogers, Allan
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Rooker, Jeff
Turner, Dennis


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Vaz, Keith


Rowlands, Ted
Wallace, James


Ruddock, Joan
Walley, Joan


Sedgemore, Brian
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Sheerman, Barry
Wareing, Robert N.


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wigley, Dafydd


Short, Clare
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Skinner, Dennis
Wilson, Brian


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Winnick, David


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Worthington, Tony


Snape, Peter



Spearing, Nigel
Tellers for the Noes:


Steinberg, Gerry
Mr. Allen McKay and


Stott, Roger
Mr. Ken Eastham.


Strang, Gavin

Question accordingly agreed to:

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Housing (Scotland)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): I beg to move,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 15th December, be approved.
I know, Mr. Speaker, that a number of hon. Members hope to catch your eye this evening and I therefore propose to keep my opening remarks brief. Nevertheless, it may be helpful if I remind the House that housing support grant is a deficit subsidy that is paid to certain local authorities—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will it be for the convenience of the House to take together the two motions on the Order Paper?

Mr. Donald Dewar: Will we have a three-hour debate if both matters are taken together, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Dewar: Very well.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It would be sensible to take both together if the complete picture is fully to be understood.

Mr. Speaker: Then we shall discuss also the following prayer:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Housing Revenue Account General Fund Contribution Limits (Scotland) Order 1988 (S.I., 1988, No. 2081), dated 29th November, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th December, be annulled.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Housing support grant is a subsidy that is paid to certain local authorities to help them meet their council housing costs. To be more precise, it is a subsidy paid by the Government to those authorities which, on reasonable assumptions about the income and expenditure falling on their housing revenue accounts, would otherwise have an excess of expenditure over income.
Full details of the housing support grant settlement for 1989–90 are set out in the draft order and in the report which accompanies the draft order. The amounts of grant which will be paid to individual authorities are listed in annex C of that report. The House will wish to note that the total amounts to over £60 million. This is an increase of 11 per cent. over the £54·6 million which is being paid during the current year.
Before discussing in detail certain aspects of the settlement, I should record my thanks to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, with whom I have had full discussions about the settlement.
I mentioned earlier that the housing support grant calculations depend upon reasonable assumptions about local authority income and expenditure levels. These assumptions give rise to a certain amount of misunderstanding. They are crucial, however, to an understanding of how housing support grant is calculated and to the determination of the grant entitlements of individual authorities. It may therefore be helpful if I deal briefly with

each of the main items of income and expenditure associated with housing revenue accounts and describe the assumptions underlying the estimates.
The loan charges which we estimate authorities will pay in 1989–90 are based on a projection of each authority's capital debt to mid-1989–90, taking account of the estimated amounts of new borrowing and debt redemption. To calculate interest charges, we apply to these figures of capital debt the average interest rate expected for local authority borrowing in 1989–90. At present, this is estimated to be 10·2 per cent. I appreciate, however, that interest rates may fluctuate. I can assure the House, therefore, that if in practice interest rates are significantly different from our estimate we shall bring forward an appropriate variation order. At present, however, we estimate loan charges for all authorities in 1989–90 to be just over £464 million.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The Minister just made an important statement to the effect that the Government will bring forward a variation order if there is what he rather quaintly described as a fluctuation in interest rates. How much of an increase would there have to be for the Government to reimburse Scottish housing authorities?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: It is customary to bring forward a variation order if there has been a significant change in the level of interest rates applying to local authority borrowing. This year, the latest estimate of the pool interest rate for 1988–89 is the same as it was when the 1988–89 order was made in January 1988. I have no plans, therefore, to bring forward a variation order for 1988–89 but, as I said, if there are significant changes in interest rates, we shall bring forward an order for next year.
The other major item of expenditure on housing revenue accounts concerns the cost of managing and maintaining the stock. For 1989–90, we have increased the management and maintenance assumption in the housing support grant formula by 8·5 per cent. I am pleased to tell the House that this is the third year in succession in which we have been able to adopt an increase which is higher than inflation. The per house allowance will rise from £333 during the current year to £361 in 1989–90, which should encourage further real growth in repairs expenditure.
On the income side, we are assuming for the purposes of the settlement that rents will increase by £1·48 per house per week over the 1988–89 order levels, bringing rents to £18·93 in order terms. This increase of 8·5 per cent. matches that of the management and maintenance assumption. I invite the House to note this deliberate linkage, which reflects the fact that improved levels of service have to be paid for by increased rents.
I should also stress that, in making these assumptions, the Government are not seeking to fetter the discretion of authorities to make their own decisions about the level of rents and about the level of management and maintenance expenditure. We are making these assumptions for the purposes of calculating housing support grant and we do so in the interest of equity—to ensure that all authorities are treated fairly in the distribution of grant. We thus avoid an authority receiving more grant because it is inefficient at carrying out repairs, so loading up its housing revenue account with maintenance expenditure. Similarly,


if an authority chooses to set a higher rent to improve the levels of service it provides to its tenants, it may do so without being penalised in grant terms.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: The Minister mentioned rent levels. Is he aware that, since the Government came to power, council house tenants in Scotland have suffered rent increases of 230 per cent.? In view of that, how can the Minister possibly justify a situation in which out of the 56 housing authorities in Scotland, 33 will not receive a single penny in housing support grant and 48 will be prohibited from taking a single penny from the general fund for the housing revenue account? How on earth can the Minister possibly justify that vicious attack on the living standards of council house tenants?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My first point in reply to the hon. Gentleman relates to the formula. Essentially, the amounts of housing support grant payable are derived from an assessment of the expenditure and the income falling on local authority housing revenue accounts in 1989–90. The means by which the various items of such expenditure and income are estimated are set out in the report accompanying the order, and the way in which the HSG is calculated is known as the HSG formula.

Mr. Canavan: Answer the question.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: If the hon. Gentleman wants me to spell out the formula in greater detail and explain how it works, I would be pleased to do so.
The Government choose an average rent level and an average level of management and maintenance expenditure which they consider reasonable for all authorities. Those reasonable levels are known as the HSG assumption, and the Scottish Office recalculates the housing revenue account of each authority using those assumptions about rent levels and management and maintenance expenditure.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) wants to know why we use assumptions rather than actual figures. I will give him an example. The average expenditure per house in 1988–89 in Aberdeen is £294, but it is £552 in Dumbarton. That does not necessarily mean that Aberdeen is more efficient than Dumbarton. Levels of expenditure depend not only on efficiency, but also on political decisions about the level of service to be provided and on technical decisions about the extent to which repair programmes should be capitalised. That is why we use the assumptions to which I referred.
If there is still a deficit on the recalculated account, that deficit is made up by paying an equivalent of housing support grant to the authority concerned. The main factor in determining whether an authority receives a housing support grant is its level of loan charges.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West asked why rents have increased so much and he referred to a figure of 230 per cent. Rents have indeed risen by more than the level of inflation since the Government came to power. However, that reflects the artificially low rent policies that many Scottish authorities maintain at the expense of their ratepayers.

Mr. Canavan: Oh, come off it.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Gentleman disputes that. I will give him the figures. On average, the rents for local authority tenants in Scotland are £2·55 less than those paid on average south of the border. The estimated average rent increase for this year will be less than that for last year. We calculate that the rise last year was £1·65 and that the estimated average rent increase for 1989–90 will be about £1 ·30 to £1·34.

Mr. Ron Brown (Edinburgh, Leith): Why is Edinburgh district council treated so disgracefully while the Scottish Development Agency, a Government body, is given finance that is essentially a subsidy for Barratt, which will benefit in a part of Edinburgh known to the Minister—West Pilton Circus? The company will make a vast profit.
Does the Minister think that that is a good thing, or does he realise that it is one of the cynical cons repeatedly condemned by the people of Edinburgh?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am proud that, when West Pilton was in my constituency rather than that of the hon. Gentleman, I invited the SDA chairman and chief executive down. Through their intervention, considerable environmental assistance was given so that an adventure playground could be built. The SDA has continued the tradition, and I am very glad that it is assisting with urban regeneration projects in the hon. Gentleman's constituency which I believe will benefit his constituents.
Our calculations in December suggested that an increase of about £1·73 would be sufficient to allow Edinburgh district council to make a small but real improvement in the services that it provides for its tenants. While rises in interest rates may now suggest a slightly higher increase, the figure suggested by the council's Labour group appears excessive. Tenants should be in no doubt that, if rents are increased by the threatened £4 a week, it was the council—not the Government—that imposed an increase on that scale.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I should like to go on. I shall listen to the hon. Gentleman's speech and reply to him when I wind up the debate.
I must repeat that, despite the increase in housing support grant for 1989–90, it is the Government's policy to reduce indiscriminate subsidies to council housing so that resources may be concentrated on capital investment, and to target money towards individuals who need it. This year housing benefit in Scotland is expected to reach £623·8 million. We are limiting contributions that authorities may estimate to make to their housing revenue accounts from their general funds. Hon. Members will have noted that for 1989–90 the limits on such contributions have been set at £3·5 million in aggregate. That compares with limits totalling £22 million this year and an outturn figure of £42 million in 1987–88.
I make no apology for those figures. The progressive reduction in the amount of general fund contributions means that authorities can no longer maintain rents at unreasonably low levels by systematically subsidising their housing revenue accounts at the expense of their ratepayers. In achieving that position, I believe that we have put the finances of council housing on a much sounder basis. Housing support grant remains to help authorities that have particular difficulties in meeting their loan charges because of historically acquired debt; but


indiscriminate subsidies to tenants, regardless of their ability to pay for their housing, have been substantially eliminated. Because rents are now at a more realistic level, council tenants can look forward to a real improvement in the levels of service provided by their landlord.

Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister briefly explain why it is so obnoxious to give some subsidy to the public sector tenant, while the bill for the Treasury contribution to mortgage interest relief continues to escalate without let or hindrance?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Housing benefit in Scotland this year is expected to be more than £623 million. That is not being obnoxious to the council tenant, but targeting subsidy to those who need it. If mortgage tax relief has continued to rise, as indeed it has, it is largely because the Government have enabled many more people to buy their own homes. We believe that that fits in with the aspirations of the Scottish people.
I welcome the fact that local authority rents are able to make a greater contribution towards meeting housing costs—

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the Minister give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No. Many hon. Members wish to speak, and I want to develop the points that I am making.

Let me return, however, to our proposals for general fund contributions in 1989–90. As I have said, the aggregate of the limits on contributions amounts to £3·5 million and positive limits have been allocated to eight authorities. The contribution limits have been calculated to ensure that the average rent increase in those authorities can be restricted to £2 per house per week, or that the average rent can be held to £20·50 per house per week. The calculations are based on the Scottish Development Department's estimate of the loan charges which each authority will face in 1989–90. They assume that there will be an increase of 8 ·5 per cent. in authorities' management and maintenance expenditure over the levels for which they themselves budgeted in 1988–89. Let me emphasise that we are working from authorities' own figures, as reported to CIPFA—the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy. Those calculations are therefore as realistic and as accurate as we can make them.
I should also stress that in no sense should the maximum £2 per house per week increase be regarded as a norm or standard to which authorities are expected to conform. It is not the business of this Government to set local authority rents. Authorities will be making their own decisions about the levels of management and maintenance expenditure in their area and about the rents which they will need to set in order to balance their housing revenue accounts.

Finally, I should like to touch briefly on the combined effect of the subsidy proposals before us tonight. I calculate that the overall effect of housing support grant and general fund contributions on the housing revenue accounts of local authorities in Scotland will be to generate an overall rent increase of around £1·34 per house per week.

Mr. Thomas Graham: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamiilton: I want to finish this point.

Mr. Graham: Can the Minister tell the tenants of the Scottish Special Housing Association—which the Minister controls—why he is putting their rents up by an average of £1·88, when they already have some of the highest rents in Britain?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The rents of SSHA tenants will not be as high as tenants of new towns and certainly will not be as high as those of many housing association tenants. The estimated average rents of SSHA tenants for 1989–90 will be £20·82. The estimated average rents for Scottish local authority tenants will be £17·57 and for new town tenants £21·26.
I express my conviction that the fact that there has been an increase for the SSHA tenants will mean that there will be a considerable amount to spend on management and maintenance.
If authorities decide to increase rents by more than the figures we have calculated—

Mr. Adam Ingram: Will the hon Gentleman give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall listen carefully to what the hon. Gentleman says in his speech, and I shall be happy to respond to it in my reply.
This order relates to local authorities. If the authorities decide to increase rents by more than the figures we have calculated—for example, to meet expenditure on management and maintenance increased by more than the 8·5 per cent. we have assumed—this is their prerogative. But I emphasise that that will be the authorities' own decisions, and that high rent increases are not being imposed by the Government. An average increase of £1·34 per house per week would be rather less than the amount of the increase last year. That would bring average local authority rents in Scotland to £17·57 per week. I do not regard that as unreasonable. It is well below the current year's average council rent of £18·78 in England arid Wales. It is also substantially below current rent levels in housing association, SSHA and Scottish new town houses.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) made an interesting contribution to the debate. I was, of course, forewarned about what he would say, because much of his speech was reported in advance by last Wednesday's Evening Times. Indeed, this debate was reported as having taken place, which was no doubt attributable to the hon. Gentleman's pioneering approach in favour of exclusive journalism.
I must tell the hon. Gentleman that a tribute was paid to him by the Leader of the House, who said:
The detailed speech that the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) appears to have made in the House in the early hours of the morning and which is set out with such cogency and clearness by Mr. Hernon is a tribute to the hon. Gentleman's foresight rather than an indication of the hours that he keeps in the House."-[Official Report, 19 January 1989; Vol. 145, c. 488.]

Dr. John Reid: I thank the Minister for raising this matter, which is testimony to the efficiency of my press operations and the absolute incompetence of the Government in cancelling the debate in the first place. Lest the Minister is disappointed, my name is down to speak tonight and I shall ram every one of those words down his throat.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I was just about to say that I looked forward with interest to discover whether he would use the same speech, but I am grateful, at least, for the opportunity to respond tonight.
The hon. Member for Motherwell, North complained about excessive rent increases and about the lack of housing support grant for Motherwell district council.

Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you could explain how the Minister will reply at the end of his speech to the interventions that hon. Members have made, if he is now to reply to a speech that has not been made?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The article appeared under the headline:
Rents rise hammers the Scots
I am glad of the opportunity to reply to the hon. Gentleman. Despite the absence of housing support grant, Motherwell district council has consistently maintained rents at a level substantially lower than the Scottish average. The management and maintenance expenditure of the council is also well below the Scottish average. In effect, the council's low-rent policies are restricting the levels of service that it provides to its tenants.
It is, of course, within the council's discretion to take such a course of action, but I do not believe that we would be justified in providing subsidies to maintain that situation.

Dr. Reid: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall not give way, but I look forward with great interest to the hon. Gentleman's speech, which I shall follow carefully.
I believe that the proposals considered tonight constitute a fair and reasonable subsidy package. They set an acceptable balance between the interests of the council tenant, the community charge payer and the taxpayer. We have consulted the authorities in detail about the orders, and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Donald Dewar: One of the differences between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) is that my hon. Friend writes his own scripts, which has some virtue.
I thought, however, that the Minister organised and shuffled his many bits of paper with unusual dexterity and I enjoyed some of his remarks. It is always fascinating to know-it has never struck me before-that the way in which the housing support grant is calculated is known as the housing support grant formula. That is a gem worth preserving.
The Minister then plunged into a remarkable farrago of nonsense about notional figures, bordering on myth, as he dealt with the way in which the formula works.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I am interested in the concept of notional figures based on myth. If the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) writes his own script and delivers notional speeches that were never given, but were nevertheless published in the press, and does not admit that that is a misleading and dishonest thing to do, why are we worried about myth?

Mr. Dewar: All I can say is that I welcome the presence of the hon. and learned Gentleman. It is refreshing to see him here as he is one of the great entertainers of the place. I hope that he will contribute later.
One of the problems that we face is that we get locked into debate on specific orders. Each of the litany of orders is taken as a whole and debated intensively. The danger is that we may lose sight of what has been happening to housing in Scotland. If we try to achieve some sense of perspective, it is clear that the situation is deeply depressing and that some of the carefully presented figures used by the Scottish Office represent no more than creative accountancy, which does not disguise the fact that housing has been harder hit than any other sector or that the prejudices of Government have directly impacted on the lives of our constituents.
There are many myths, some of which are at the basis of the Government's approach. In Conservative circles there is still a feeling that council house tenants are heavily subsidised. All too often in ministerial minds, and certainly in the minds of Conservative Back Benchers, the word "subsidy" becomes associated with the term "lazy". We are told that the system is corrupt. I recall the Secretary of State for Scotland making a dramatic speech in which he said that local government finance was a corrupt system designed to favour people who voted Labour, in a tendentious attempt to suggest that the local government finance system is one of the ways in which the dependency culture is perpetuated. I believe that that is to misrepresent and misunderstand in a grotesque and wounding way.
Despite the special pleading of the Minister, there is a painful contrast between the treatment of public-sector tenants and that of owner-occupiers. Tax relief on mortgages constantly escalates. It is difficult to defend a system in which the value of one's mortgage increases with one's income and in which anyone with a substantial middle-class income would receive genuine advice from his accountant that he-should plunge into the maximum debt that he can raise. We all know that that is a crazy system, and the Minister wisely did not try to defend it.
I understand that the best estimate of the cost to the Treasury of mortgage tax relief in 1984–85 was £3·5 billion. In 1988–89 it has gone up to £5·25 billion. That is certainly an under-estimate, because it has not caught up with the recent escalation in interest rates. It is difficult to calculate a Scottish figure because the statistics changed in 1982–83 with the introduction of MIRAS. However I understand from the Library, using the family expenditure survey, that the figure is probably just under 7 per cent. of the total—an annual figure of perhaps £350 million. When we compare that with the £55 million or £60 million that will be spent on housing support grant, the point is eloquently and brutally made. I find the Minister's attempt to use housing benefit as an alibi totally unconvincing.

Mr. Douglas: My hon. Friend has failed to remark on an additional advantage to the owner-occupier, particularly in cities such as Edinburgh where the capital value of the assets have increased in the past year. An article in the property page of last week's edition of The Scotsman shows enormous increases in capital value which cannot be available to council tenants.

Mr. Dewar: That is a fair point. I am strongly in favour of helping people to get into home ownership if they so wish. However, I object to a system which is designed to


help those who are already prosperous, who are almost certainly already property owners and who will use the system as a tax advantage and not as a way of broadening the base of what was once called the property-owning democracy.
For the Minister to use housing benefit as an alibi is a joke. Housing benefit provides help for the lowest income group in distress. By pushing up rents, as the Minister is determined to do, more people will be forced into the housing benefit net. No doubt he will then parade it as evidence of the Government's generosity, and the whole process will become a pathetic intellectual fraud.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is the hon. Gentleman in favour of abolishing mortgage tax relief?

Mr. Dewar: I hardly imagine that the Minister is not aware of my answer. No, I am not in favour of doing that, but I am in favour of spending money to help those in need of help to get into the home-ownership market. I should have thought that in his better moments, the Minister might have taken some interest in achieving that end.
The Government's approach to housing is not even-handed. The public sector is being manipulated in a way that puts ever-increasing burdens on those who wish to continue to rent. The impenetrable good nature of the Minister is no consolation. I fear that he is a man who knows not what he does but who is prepared to accept it.
Housing support grant in the coming year will be £5 million higher than it is in the current year. That will be paraded by some people as good news, but if we look back to 1980–81 we find that we spent £228 million on housing support grant, whereas next year we shall spend only £60 million. That is a measure of the Government's indifference. In 1980–81 it made up 37 per cent. of total housing costs in Scotland. Next year it will be 7 per cent. and 33 authorities will receive no grant.
Let us take Glasgow as an example. In some ways it is the best case to take from the Minister's point of view, because it is one of the few authorities that is still receiving a significant amount of help. In 1980–81 Glasgow received £49·4 million, whereas in 1989–90 it will receive £27·8 million, in cash terms. In real terms that is a fall over that comparatively limited period of 65 per cent. For Scotland as a whole, in 1987–88 constant prices, between 1980–81 and 1989–90 the drop is from £338 million to £54 million, a fall of 84 per cent. Yet Ministers say that they are generous to the public sector and that they bring good news. We are creating a massive housing crisis. There is no way in which the Minister can hide that.
The general fund contribution to rents has dropped this year from £22 million to £3 million. I apologise for using so many figures, but they put into sharp perspective the reality of what is happening. In 1983–84, the figure was £125 million—18 per cent. of total housing costs. In the coming year the figure will be less than 1 per cent.
The Minister says, with almost breathtaking complacency, that he is not trying to set rents for authorities, but that does bear even the most cursory examination. It is a disgrace. It is not just an abstract entry in a municipal balance sheet. It means that rents, which have increased in nine years by over 230 per cent., as my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) mentioned, will again be substantially increased.
The Minister does not convince anyone when he says that rents in Scotland are still below those south of the

border. I do not believe that anyone would accept as a rational argument the claim that everything south of the border has to be duplicated in Scotland. That is the whole point of having a different form of housing stock, a different form of local government finance and a different approach to the social responsibilities of providing housing. It is a puerile argument—one of which the Minister should be ashamed—merely to say that. on average, tenants in England pay £2·55 a week more. If one considered housing costs, wages and incomes per head in Scotland, one would find that the picture was very different.
The point, as Renfrew pointed out in its representations to a number of hon. Members last week, is that many local authorities are now reaching the stage where housing is entirely self-financing. That is extraordinary, particularly when we look at the contrast with the other end of the housing market. It has been done largely in order to keep down the poll tax in its first year of operation and to make a few political points.
Ministers are full of brave talk about choice, but choice for them has a very special definition. It is distorted and destroyed for those in the public sector who wish to exercise choice by continuing to rent. Renting has, quite deliberately, been made a very unattractive option for anyone who is above the rebate level. That cannot be defended.
The Minister may be a nice man. [Interruption.] A lively debate has broken out in the ranks behind me. I am prepared to accept that he is a nice man, although my judgment may be distorted by my knowledge of some of his predecessors. At one time, Opposition Members thought of having the Michael Ancram memorial meeting tonight, but we decided to resist the temptation. The Minister cannot wander into politics and not be answerable for what he does.
The structure of housing finance is now based more and more on sales and anticipated receipts. In 1989·90, the general fund contribution will be £3 million. Housing support grant will be £60 million. Borrowing in the normally accepted sense and authorised by central Government will be £125 million. On top of that, the standstill in real terms which is being allowed for this year includes £307 million from anticipated receipts of council houses. For the first time we have a redistribution of receipts. Thirteen authorities have been asked to give up £10 million of their receipts which are now being reallocated.
I shall encapsulate the point. In 1987–88, of the total sum available for housing in the public sector, about 33 per cent. came from the sale of council houses. In 1989 –90, only two years later, that figure went up to 71 per cent. That is an unsatisfactory basis on which to fund the totally inadequate effort, without commitment, to do something about the collapse of housing stock in this country and its impact on the individual living standards of many of our constituents.

Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend is touching on a point of enormous interest in my constituency. East Lothian local authority, a comparitively small authority, is the hardest hit by the new concept of negative capital allocation. How can it possibly make sense for a small district council to pay the Government as much as £2·8 million of the proceeds of council house sales before it is


allowed to start to spend any capital funds on the renovation or building of new houses to meet the urgent housing need in that district?

Mr. Dewar: I accept entirely what my hon. Friend says. They are now real problems for many district authorities, and not just on the capital side. There is another important problem that I might mention, and I shall fall to that temptation. I refer to what is happening to homeless persons and to the provision of hostel accommodation. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) will return to this point 2if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
A reasonable man may think that this matter should be taken account of in the revenue support grant, but it is not. A few authorities are accommodated in the housing support grant calculation, but for many that do not have housing support grant, anything that they do for hostels and in trying to cater for the real problem of homelessness in the community must fall as a direct charge upon rent-paying tenants. I am told by the Scottish Council for Single Homeless—perhaps the Minister will deal with this point—that the figure in Edinburgh is as high as £1·27 a week for every tenant. That is an extraordinary figure. It shows the Government's absolutely deplorable failure—on occasions, I tend to under-use language; I shall settle for "deplorable"—to face up to their responsibilities in regard to homelessness.
If we put it all together—the tragedy and the impact upon the individuals to whom I have been referring and the problems on the capital side—it means the gradual and steady deterioration that every hon. Member can see in the statistics, incomplete through they are, and in our own constituencies, week in and week out.
In its brief report—I make no apology for quoting it—the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities gives the Government's figures for 1986 and suggests that, of the 843,000 council houses in Scotland, 88,000 require major rewiring, about 234,000 suffer from dampness problems of one sort or another, and 153,000 require major renovation and repair. Of course there are arguments about whether the figures are accurate. It is difficult to know, because the Government will not carry out a house condition survey. We do not even have a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs to examine the evidence and come up with authoritative estimates.
No hon. Member could in all honesty deny that the situation is deteriorating. Whatever rent level may be fixed, we are sliding towards asking people to accept housing that they should not be asked to accept and in which they cannot reasonably be expected to live. My district council, Glasgow, would be the first—it would want—to concede that even preliminary inspection of dampness problems may be put off for many months because of the pressure on limited resources and limited staff.
Sometimes I do not know what to say to a tenant who tells me that he has reported something which, rightly or wrongly, he believes is affecting the health of his children. Such people may wait for two or three months without anyone approaching them to deal with the problem. I know that the answer is that it will be some time yet before anything happens, and even when property is inspected it will be longer before the remedial work is carried out. That

cannot be satisfactory. It is worlds removed from the—at times—almost insufferable complacency with which the Government inspect their housing record. It is the result of 10 years of neglect by the Government—sins of omission and of commission.
Worse still, the Government seem to want to weight and distort their arguments and policies even further. Their arithmetic on housing finance is a cruel message to anyone who wants to remain in the public sector. That message is getting through, but should never have been sent out: those who live in council houses should be there only because they have nowhere else to go or cannot manage to escape. That is not choice, by any standard. It is the end product of the misconceived policies which the Minister has followed so slavishly and complacently in recent years.
We hear about the Government's commitment. Let us examine public expenditure on housing, as shown by Government figures. At 1987–88 prices, it was £866 million in 1982–83. In 1989–90 it will be £537 million, a drop of almost 40 per cent. If a real cut of 40 per cent. measures up to the enormity of the crisis, if it shows the sort of commitment about which the Secretary of State boasts, and if he is really the sort of Member who is proud to represent public sector housing as well as owner-occupiers, he should examine these figures, and then his conscience.
This is a tragic error. It is the wrong approach, carried out in the wrong way with the wrong social objectives. We believe in and want to create choice. We are not opposed to owner-occupation: it should be encouraged—but sensibly. On the other side of the equation, there should be genuine choice that can be exercised in decent conditions by people who do not want to buy and who want to continue to rent in the public sector.
We oppose the orders because they directly threaten to compound the errors that have accumulated over the past decade or so. If unchallenged and continued, they will inevitably deepen the real crisis that we face in Scottish housing.

Mr. Bill Walker: It was a bit rich of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) to talk about creative accounting, given that he is a member of the party that, between 1974 and 1979, introduced massive real cuts in local government and had to go to the IMF.
We also heard from the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), with his creative and enterprising mind. We always knew that he was one of the intellectuals of the Opposition, but even he was stretching the imagination by claiming to have participated in a phantom debate.

Dr. Reid: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will forgive the eccentricities of a humble Back Bencher like myself, who was quoted on a speech that he did not make, but what would he make of a Government Department, such as the Scottish Office, responding in detail in the same article to the speech that I had not made in a debate that had not taken place?

Mr. Walker: I would say that, once more, the hon. Gentleman is indulging in fantasy and creative accounting. It is right and proper that some defence should be made to even a phantom debate because something that appears in the press does not appear to be phantom and it must


therefore be dealt with. That is why the other side of what appears in the press must be answered. It is no good just saying that the debate did not take place or "We didna ken it was on", because the fact is that the hon. Gentleman has been caught out and he must live with it.
The hon. Member for Garscadden referred to mortgage interest relief, which is just a continuation of what has gone on for many decades under successive Governments. If I heard the hon. Gentleman aright he was suggesting that the way in which the Government approach mortgage relief encourages people to enter into the maximum amount of debt. How can he explain the capital borrowings of local authorities, if that is not also entering into the maximum amount of debt? There is certainly a lot of creative accounting in that.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that tax allowance is exactly what it says—it is an allowance; it allows people to keep the money that they have earned whereas, quite properly, housing benefit is taxpayers' funds being directed to individuals in need. That is the difference. To pretend that the two are the same is to distort the truth.
It is interesting to note that housing support grant in Scotland will increase, as it has previously, from the figure of £54 ·6 million to £60.4 million-an increase of over 10 per cent. That is a real increase. It is directed towards only 23 of our district councils—33 are outside the apportionment, including my own two district councils of Perth and Kinross, and Angus, and will not receive any of the £60·4 million. Once again, taxpayers in my constituency are seeing their funds directed to councils outside Tayside.
One should also consider the huge sums that are paid directly to individuals into the housing coffers from housing benefit. That is what my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland was saying. The important point is that we are talking about the vast sum of £600 million-plus going directly into the housing coffers. It is creative accounting to pretend that that is not an aid to public sector housing.
One should recognise that at least this Government are working on both fronts. There is no question but that £600 million is a lot of money. Quite properly, that money is going to individuals in need rather than a blanket figure going to a statutory body. That is the difference between the Government and the Opposition. The Government recognise that those in council housing, local authority housing or public housing of any kind, who are in need of financial support because of their financial circumstances, quite properly, should be, and are being, assisted.
Anyone who has made any attempt to study public sector housing, will realise that two major problems have been management and maintenance. Many of the houses built in the past 30 years have been found to be badly designed and poorly built. That is why the repairs allocation of £361 per house is welcome. It is an increase of 8·5 per cent.—again, a real terms increase—and following two years of real increases, it must mean that many more repairs will be completed during 1989–90, which is
to be welcomed.
I am sure that I am not alone in thinking that 73,700 houses improved in 1987, a greater number than in any of the previous 10 years, is welcome. Certainly, for people who have been living in sub-standard local authority houses, these improvements are welcome. When we add that number to the almost 332,000 local authority

dwellings, we find that almost 40 per cent. of the stock has been included in modernisation schemes at a cost of over £1,000 million.
For the Opposition to say that the Government do not care and have not directed any funds is a distortion of the facts. We can at least produce hope in Scotland, which is the finest part of the United Kingdom in which to live. The quality of life in large areas of Scotland is far superior to that in the south-east of England. We should be pleased to know that things are being done in parts of Scotland where they need to be done.
Many of the messages coming from the tenants say that local authorities are not always good landlords. Many dreams have been turned into nightmares by defects such as dampness and condensation, which have created health hazards and misery. Some of that was the direct result of bad management and lack of supervision by local authorities. Local authorities would not admit that dampness and condensation existed until they were proved wrong.
The Scottish Special Housing Association, the other public sector landlord, has also had substantial resources devoted to it to meet its needs and the demand for new houses. We have seen 7,500 new homes costing £485 million, and £930 million has been spent on 32,000 new and rehabilitated houses. At the same time we have seen a drop in the number of households renting in the public sector. That is welcome, because it means that people are buying their homes, and for the first time in decades the figure fell below 50 per cent. in Scotland, until today it stands at about 48 per cent.
Over 132,000 tenants have been able to buy their homes, and that is a direct result of the Government's legislation, which was opposed by the Opposition. The proportion of households owning their own homes has risen in Scotland from 35 per cent. to over 44 per cent. That is good news for the people who own their homes. The Opposition say that our record in office is not good. The Labour party's record in office was abysmal and ours is far superior.
Since 1979, the resources made available for improvement and repair grants have, on average, been seven times higher per year than during the years of the last Labour Government between 1974 and 1979. The Conservative Government have spent £77 million per year compared with the Labour Government's derisory £11 million per year. Between 1982 and 1984, the maximum rate of repair grant was boosted from 50 per cent. to 90 per cent. During that time, Scotland's cities were transformed and private sector stock in the stone-built tenements was restored to its original structural magnificence. That is true of Dundee and of many of our other cities. The inside of those lovely buildings was modernised to a standard beyond the dreams of the original builders. Over 272,000 grant applications were approved, and today the private sector stock stands at about 1 million dwellings. The number of houses below tolerable standard has been more than halved to fewer than 56,000. That is still too many and there is still much to be done, but to suggest that the Government are doing nothing is a travesty of the truth.
We are continuing our programme of improvements, new building and change. Part 11 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1987 came into effect on 2 January this year. All new private lettings after that date will be assured or short assured tenancies. Under both forms of tenancy, landlords and tenants will be able freely to negotiate rents


before the start of the tenancy. That is choice. Scottish Homes will work in partnership with other bodies to develop new approaches in housing that are long overdue and very necessary. Scottish Homes will have the benefit of experienced staff from both the Housing Corporation and the Scottish Special Housing Association. This background of knowledge, expertise and experience should combine with the new powers and functions to give Scottish Homes the ability to achieve the change in quality for the life of tenants that has eluded local authorities since 1945.
The motion will continue that change. We introduced the tenants charter as part of the Tenants' Rights, Etc. (Scotland) Act 1980. It has granted public sector tenants several important new rights, such as the right to buy at generous discounts—the Opposition opposed that—security of tenure, the right to succession, the right to a written lease and the right to alter or improve one's home. To suggest that the Government have done nothing is nonsense. Now, tenants' choice and rights will be extended by the Housing (Scotland) Act, which will also allow them more responsibility.
Tenants in Scotland will have the opportunity to seek a new landlord and new forms of tenancy, if they so wish, without moving out of the houses in which they live. There is no compulsion, so this is choice. All the Opposition can do is wring their hands. One has only to look at the results of their stewardship between 1974 and 1979 to realise just how hollow are their speeches.
We, the Conservative Government, have improved conditions and increased choice, and have made it possible for many more people to own their homes, giving them the opportunity to pass a capital asset on to their children, an opportunity denied to them by previous Administrations. We continue to increase grants and choice, while the Opposition girn and greet and complain. Worst still, the Labour Opposition steal the clothes of the Scottish National party, and make them respectable, with the devastating results that we have seen in the recent opinion polls. That should be worrying the Labour party. Instead of shadow boxing, and making speeches in debates that do not take place, they should be working out how to become a real Opposition, one capable of alternative Government. They should be turning their minds to that rather than to the negative nonsense that we have heard this evening.

Mr. Michael J. Martin: It is important to remind the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), and the Minister, both of whom talked about subsidies going to council houses, that council tenants are also taxpayers. They are not getting money for nothing. The hon. Member for Tayside, North spoke nonsense about mortgage interest relief, which is a blanket subsidy that goes to people who are not necessarily in need.
It is significant to note that just before Christmas there was a by-election in Glasgow. The successful candidate, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) promised the people of Govan that he would be here to defend their interests. Glasgow district council has been forced, because of the order, to increase rents by £4 a week but the hon. Member for Govan is not present to defend

the people of Glasgow. The hon. Member for Govan can afford any council rent rise because he writes for a dirty Tory rag.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The hon. Gentleman is playing a dangerous game. Only a quarter of his hon. Friends have bothered to turn up for the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) is in Govan working for his constituents, which is what three quarters of Labour Members seem to have chosen to do. It is a silly game to play.

Mr. Martin: If I was in Springburn tonight, which I would like to be because I am a resident there as well as its representative, many people would be asking why I was not here defending their interests. The hon. Member for Govan should get his priorities right. He had tears running down his cheeks when he told the people of Govan what he intended to do for them, but he conned those people. He is interested only in writing for a Tory rag.
I listened with interest to what the Minister said about the standard of repairs. He was suggesting that some local authorities give too high a priority to the level of repairs and will have to cut down. The Minister knows that much of the council housing stock, particularly in Glasgow, Springburn was built after 1945 when the Government told the local authority that it would have to embark on building non-traditional houses. For example, we have the Blackburn houses and houses with hardly any timber because of those policies.
Until the 1960s, local authorities such as those in Glasgow were forced to build houses such as those on the Easterhouse estate because the Tory Government of the day told them to do so. Also, in the early 1960s local authorities were forced to build multi-storey housing. It is one thing to leave a tenant without rewiring or double glazing but how can the Minister expect a local authority to leave multi-storey flats without a lift so that people have to walk up 22 storeys? The only thing a local authority can do is use its housing budget to ensure that repairs such as that are carried out. If the Minister takes subsidies away from local authorities, he is forcing council tenants to accept more responsibility, and some of them do not live in the non-traditional houses.
Many of the non-traditional houses have flat roofs. With hindsight it is easy to say that no house that has to endure damp such as that in the west of Scotland should have a flat roof. We know that that leads to dampness problems. However, when they were being built, the architects—the experts—told local authorities to use flat roofs and they conned the Governments involved—usually a Tory Government—into providing subsidies for the building of such houses. As a result there were severe problems with damp. Hutchinson E type houses were an example of that, as were the Balgrayhill corridor-type houses in my constituency. The problems were so great that the Government have encouraged local authorities to put the traditional gable roofs back on.
That type of dampness has caused bronchitis. Those with chest complaints such as asthma have been forced out of their houses. It is unfair to force local authorities to say to these tenants, "It does not matter whether your son has chronic asthma; he will have to stay in the house." That is morally wrong. The Minister's comments about the level of repairs were extremely unfair.
There has been talk about the sale of council houses. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) will agree with me that some houses that were bought in Knightswood for £8,000 with discounts have since been sold for £38,000. The ex-tenants have moved to Bearsden.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: Yes.

Mr. Martin: But there are 8,000 unemployed in my constituency, and I am not the only Member who represents a constituency with such unemployment. Few of those who are on the dole can say, "I shall buy that house for £38,000." The hon. Member for Tayside, North need not talk to me about choice. There are many other tenants who are still sitting in council houses in Possilpark and Hamiltonhill who have been forced into that position.
There are other ex-tenants who have bought their house, and good luck to them. They have bought because the Government have forced up rents. The only option for many is to buy. But parents are coming to local councillors, myself and other hon. Members and asking, "Why cannot my son and daughter have a council house in the area in which they were born and bred?" The answer is simple: the council houses have been bought and the Minister will not allow any more local authority houses to be built.
The Minister had better put on his thinking cap. If he wants communities in areas such as my constituency, where there are still good, sound communities, he must ensure that if council houses are being sold at one end of the market, there is decent housing stock at the other for those who are in dire circumstances.
I came across a tragic case a few weeks ago of three members of a family suffering from cancer. The mother of the family was one of them. It was her dream to get a part of what everyone wants, the Swedish houses. Why not? She had spent 25 years in her house. She could not fulfil her dream because there was no ground floor accommodation available for her, which was what she needed because of her disability.
We say that we want to help the sick and the disabled and integrate them within the community, not isolate them. We should not be saying to tenants, "You are severely disabled and we are sorry, but you cannot have the house that you want in the community in which you have lived for 25 years."
The Minister should understand what he is doing with local government. There has been talk about 1974 to 1979, the period during which I was a councillor. I enjoyed much satisfaction from being able to get things done during those five years. There is evidence of the rehabilitation that took place in Glasgow. We saw the implementation of modernisation schemes in Knightswood and Govan, for example. Unfortunately, councillors are now suffering from despair because they do not have a decent budget. It is wrong to treat the dedicated in that way. Local government is a means of ensuring that there is proper housing, to provide people with a decent quality of life. Unfortunately, the Minister is removing that opportunity from almost every generation in Glasgow.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I have heard nothing tonight which leads me to believe that the number of letters that I receive about housing problems in my constituency will diminish.
The order goes nowhere near to tackling the housing problem in Scotland, and the Government continue to turn a blind eye to the housing crisis by understating the need for expenditure and overstating the level of income likely to be achieved. The Minister predicted that the average rent will increase by £1·34 a week, but already some increases are higher. In my constituency, the projected increase is £2 a week.
The Government have identified 356,725 houses which need to be modernised or improved. They are suffering from condensation, dampness, warped doors and windows and cracked fabric, inside and out. The £5 million increase in housing support grant is welcome, but it is destroyed by taking away £19 million of general fund contributions, leaving tenants to pay an extra £14 million to bridge the gap.
The average weekly rent in 1988–89 is £16·23—an increase of 10.8 per cent. over the last year. In Argyll and Bute, the average rent last year was £18 a week, and it is projected to rise to £20—an increase of 11 per cent. Rents are rising faster than inflation and contribute to the rate of inflation. The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) has told us about the unbelievable 230 per cent. rent rise since 1979.
Part of the reason for the rent rise is the rise in interest rates, which is the result of Government policy to dampen a boom in the south-east of England. Scotland can go hang. The order seems a waste of paper. There is a long list of local authorities with the word "nil" against each. It would be easier to say that only five districts and three islands councils will receive anything.
I believe that the Government are attempting to worm out of their responsibilities by ignoring the need for investment in the public sector. Rents are rising so quickly that they are making renting unattractive. Are the Government pushing up rents just to encourage more people to buy their council houses? Many do not want to buy because their homes are in such poor condition, and the incidence of mortgage default is growing significantly. Can the Minister tell us, although perhaps not tonight, how much housing benefit is paid out in each local authority area and how much mortgage tax relief is given in the same area?
The most important and disturbing thing of all is the plight of the homeless. According to Shelter, the number of homeless people in Scotland last year was an appalling 29,185. It is unfair that local authority tenants should have to bear the cost of a statutory service which is used equally by all sectors of the community. Such costs should be met from the revenue support grant, which would spread the load more fairly. The Government have failed singularly to tackle the problem of homelessness. In my constituency the number of homeless has risen from 180 in 1984 to 308 in 1988. To an hon. Member representing Glasgow or Edinburgh, that may not be a large rise, but in small areas and pockets of my constituency that is a large increase. That is not even the true figure. It reflects only those who go to the local authority and officially declare themselves to be homeless. The figure does not include those people


who live in overcrowded conditions, single people or childless couples who have no legal rights under the homeless persons legislation.
Not only is the plight of those people a stain on a so-called civilised country; those people cause resentment and bitterness among local people, particularly in rural areas where everyone knows everyone else, because the people in greatest need are often allocated houses before people who have waited patiently for their turn on the housing list.
Genuinely affordable housing for single people is in very short supply. They will continue to make up an increasing proportion of the homeless. It is now not possible for many local authorities to secure sufficient permanent accomodation or to make what is available available quickly enough. Some authorities have to rely on costly temporary accomodation for longer and longer periods. Local authorities are unable to perform their statutory duties adequately. There is a decline in new building and renovation and that is reducing the lettings available to homeless families to say nothing about those on the waiting lists.
All that is compounded by a further problem which particularly affects rural areas. It was estimated in 1986 that there were 19,446 second homes in Scotland. There were three in Bearsden and Milngavie and 2,763 in my constituency, and that was the highest figure for any area in Scotland.
It is very sad to see wealthy people out-pricing locals by thousands of pounds. Young couples who cannot now afford those houses must give up jobs and homes because they cannot match the inflated prices. Therefore, we lose the indigenous population and a priceless heritage and culture. House upon empty holiday house is visited perhaps once or twice a year. In this day and age where money is the god, no one in the Government cares. The order will do nothing to help the housing crisis in Scotland.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: The order does nothing for the homeless and even less for the tens of thousands of Scottish tenants living in terrible conditions. It turns the screw on people who rent and do not buy and it is yet another manifestation of the Right-wing extremism which is gripping the Tory party in Scotland. I have never seen the Minister responsible for housing in Scotland look so worried at the Dispatch Box nor the Secretary of State look so craven. The Secretary of State would sell out his own city to appease the new Right.
Never has Edinburgh had two Conservative Members of Parliament—two members of Government—who have done so little for its people, or so much to damage the reputation of our great city. While Glasgow's housing budget is receiving nearly £28 million from the Government this year, Edinburgh is getting nothing. While Shetland receives nearly £4 million, Edinburgh is getting nothing. Are there no homeless people in Edinburgh? Do Edinburgh's tenants not deserve fair treatment? Clearly not. If only the Minister and the Secretary of State treated Edinburgh in the same way as Glasgow—and that is far from generous—Edinburgh would get at least £8 million from the Government this year to help towards its budget for the homeless.
The Government's own figures show that in Scotland more than 88,000 houses need rewiring. Over 150,000 need major structural repairs. A quarter of a million are damp or have condensation, and over a third of a million need modernising. In each and every one of those houses, hundreds of thousands of Scots and their families are suffering from the effects of unmodernised houses with draughty and leaking windows and damp. That is the reality behind the Government's figures; those are the issues that the Minister has sought to dodge from the Dispatch Box.
Between 1986 and 1990 the Government will allow councils' spending on their capital accounts to fall from £200 million to £125 million. That will be the amount of their guaranteed borrowing. The plight of home owners who are still awaiting 90 per cent. grants is uncertain. The Minister will know from his mailbag, as I know from mine, that many of his constituents—like mine—will still not be guaranteed to receive a contribution towards "grant-aided" work. Some have been waiting for many years.
Figures have never been the Minister's strong point. The withdrawal of grants from Edinburgh district council, the cut in rent income resulting from Government policies and the Government's failure to help the homeless should have resulted in an average rent increase of £5 a week for every tenant in Edinburgh. But, through prudent management and cost-cutting measures, the district council has managed to cut the increase by a fifth. Revenue support grant, of which the Minister gave details earlier, has meant that that Labour council is having to squeeze even more value for money from its services and receive an even smaller contribution from the Government.
If the Government's calculations of what Edinburgh should be spending are correct, they are an insult to the people whom I represent. The figures in today's and last week's statements show that the Government are allowing Edinburgh to spend far less than other areas. The Minister thinks that Edinburgh should be spending only £214 per annum on services for each adult: £214 to keep the streets clean, stock the libraries and equip and staff the schools. Perhaps he will tell us why he is letting Dundee spend £226 and Glasgow £336, according to the Government's calculations. Those are the facts which the Minister seeks to dodge.
The Government's contribution to the poll tax in Edinburgh is, frankly, bare-faced robbery. They are allowing only £438 per head, which is £244 less than for Glasgow. That means that Edinburgh's poll tax payers are having to pay through the nose for council services. If they received equal treatment to Glasgow, instead of having to set a poll tax of £385, Edinburgh and Lothian councils would have to set a combined figure of only £151. It is sad that the Minister is now selling out Edinburgh, but it is typical of the Government bowing to the extremism which has now gripped the Tory party in Scotland.
The message that we have received today is that the Government care nothing for the tenants and even less for those groups who are under pressure because of Government measures. The Secretary of State's figures for the budget which deals in part with homelessness show the shameful record which he must defend, but which he is defending so inadequately. In the Labour Government's last year in office, they set a budget which at today's prices was £418 million, out of which councils were allowed to


spend money on the homeless. Under this Government, that has dropped to a grant of only £60 million, which is one seventh of its previous levels.
The Government's record on helping the homeless reflects that trend. We can see that their contribution has dropped from £418 million—out of which the homeless could receive some contribution—to £377 million in the Government's first year of office, to £243 million in their second year, £147 million in their third year and so on, until it now stands at £60 million. What the Government are doing to help the homeless in the Minister's own city —the capital city—is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) so rightly said, nothing at all. Yet the Labour Government were able to support Edinburgh—a Conservative council at that time-to a tune of £22 million in a direct contribution to its housing support grant, out of which the council could spend money on the homeless.
By 1983, the Government had cut that budget to zero and since 1983 they have given Edinburgh and its homeless not one penny. In fact, for seven years Edinburgh's homeless have received no help from the Government. In those years it has been left to the Labour council to show some compassion to the homeless. The Government have not even assisted the Labour council. They have stopped the Labour council taking any money from the rates and now any money from the general fund to help the homeless. That has caused Edinburgh's Labour council to look to a group of people whose incomes on average are lower than those of the population as a whole—the tenants. It is the generosity of the tenants of Edinburgh that has helped the homeless, who are less fortunate than themselves. Whether they be in the Grass Market, whether they have lost their homes because of mortgage repossessions or because of marital breakdown, those people are being supported entirely by Edinburgh, and that is a shameful record.
What we know from recent events, from the figures and the Government's abysmal record, is that we do not have a Secretary of State or Ministers who will stand up for the capital city, never mind for Scotland. We have never had such a Secretary of State and Ministers from Scotland who have done so little for their constituents or their home towns. What is all the more lamentable is that they have not been generous to other parts of Scotland—they have been Scrooge-like in the amount of money that they have given or allowed councils to spend. Considering the low level of spending and the extreme and pressing need in all parts of Scotland, it is shameful that they can do so little to help the capital city of Edinburgh. They appear to have taken money from Edinburgh and volunteered it to the Prime Minister, the Treasury and the fanatics who care not a whit for the homeless, not a jot for people who rent their houses and who appear to care less for Edinburgh than for any other area.
The important consequence of the debate is that the Secretary of State and the Ministers should be brought to account before the House for their mismanagement of Scottish councils' funds and for their lamentable failure to stand up for the needs of the population of Edinburgh and Scotland. They have been brought to account tonight, and the people of Edinburgh will take note.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) has a great deal of expert knowledge of housing and has outlined the problems of Edinburgh and Scotland. I hope that the Minister was listening because those issues are relevant to the living standards and environment of the Scottish people. His message was well worth hearing and I hope that the Minister took note.
Housing support grant is what it says—it is the amount of money central Government are prepared to give to support public housing in Scotland on a national basis. It is clear that the Government are giving less and less to any national housing programme. It is also evident that the Government have no national housing programme in Scotland. Their retreat from providing finance is witness to their lack of commitment to Scotland's housing situation and housing problems.
Since 1979–80, the housing support grant contribution to the housing revenue account has been slashed from 39 per cent. to 7 per cent. In 1989–90, only 23 out of 56 Scottish housing authorities will qualify for any form of housing support grant. By deliberate policy, the Government are withdrawing their financial commitment to any national housing programme.
As a consequence, the burden of financing council homes has shifted on to the tenants, but, at the same time, there has been a continuous reduction in Government funding—it has fallen from £391 million to £60 million when calculated on average prices. That staggering decline in commitment worth £331 million has taken place in less than a decade.
The Government are retreating from the problem. How else can one describe a Government who have done nothing to overcome the damp and decaying conditions prevalent in the Scottish housing stock and who have consistently refused, at the same time, to undertake a Scottish housing conditions survey? They are simply failing to measure up to the problem.
During the past nine years tenants have seen their rents rise by 230 per cent., but capital expenditure on housing has lagged far behind. Therefore, the Scottish tenants are getting the worst of all possible worlds-high rents and reduced housing standards. As a result of the Government's housing policy, more than two thirds of Scotland's housing stock now receives no grant support at a time when thousands of homes are simply below any tolerable standard. Once again the housing support grant settlement shows no national commitment whatsoever to tackling the major problems of homelessness, dirt and overcrowding and the other problems that are endemic in Scotland's housing system. The Government's callous indifference to Scotland's housing crisis is in the order for all to see.
The Government's housing priorities are quite clear when the vast mortgage interest relief subsidies enjoyed. by the south-east of England are compared with the sums being made available to Scottish local authorities. The Government always accuse Scottish council tenants of being sheltered from market forces, yet the £60 million provided for Scottish public sector housing pales into insignificance beside the subsidy of almost £5 billion given to English private housing through mortgage interest tax relief—by a factor of more than 80.
I wish to draw the Minister's attention specifically to homeless persons—a growing problem which the Government have singularly failed to address. The increase for the hostel portion of less than 1 per cent. of the aggregate grant is totally inadequate, but the 33 authorities which do not qualify for housing support grant are placed in an even worse position by the Government after this settlement. I hope that when the Minister has listened to my arguments, and to the points put to him earlier, he will give the House a cast-iron guarantee that he will look at the current legislation and report back with new proposals to help local authorities cope with the growing problem of homelessness.
At present most housing authorities which do not receive housing support grant have to meet all the costs of running their homeless persons' services through the housing revenue account. Surely that is unreasonable. It is unfair that local authority tenants should bear the costs of the statutory service which is used equally by all sectors of the community. Logically those costs should be met from revenue support grant, as that would spread the financial load much more fairly.
Funding hostels for homeless persons is a major problem for the local authorities which own and manage them. Those hostels are notoriously expensive for residents to operate, and even more so taking into account high void levels. I hope that the Minister will address that point when he replies to the debate.
The hostel portion of housing support grant was satisfactory while virtually all authorities were eligible. But when authorities were taken out of grant no account was taken of the grant that they had lost. I understand that a number of authorities such as East Kilbride, Perth and Kinross, Edinburgh and Inverclyde have lost quite substantial financial assistance. For example I understand that the additional combined costs of the homeless persons' service in East Kilbride and the hostel deficit has meant an increase of 75p per week per tenant, given the very small district council housing stock. In Edinburgh the figure is an approximate addition of £1 per month or £12 per tenant per year as an additional burden.
The homeless in Scotland need action, but the Government simply starve them of funds. As COSLA points out, the resources and consents available next year, excluding receipts, represent a cash reduction of £96 million for housing in Scotland.
The Government are producing a cash standstill, assuming that the greatest input to assist housing programmes must inevitably come from council house sales. It is a crazy way to run any council housing policy to say that housing provision will not be determined by the housing needs of the population but by the number of houses that can be sold. That is exactly what the Government are doing. They are imposing another major problem on Scotland's housing.
The proposed paltry increase of £5 million in housing support grant is nothing short of pathetic. As a direct result of Government policy, council house rents inevitably will rise. COSLA estimates that they will increase above the rate of inflation. The tenants are paying the price for the Government's policy. However, tenants in SNP-controlled Angus will benefit from a housing policy

which gave them a zero rent increase last year and a small increase this year which keeps Angus tenants well below the Scottish average.

Mr. John Maxton: One reason why the SNP-controlled Angus council rents will be lower is that that council is prepared to accept a subsidy from Tayside region to collect the poll tax.

Mr. Welsh: I am referring to a zero increase in rent last year. Angus was the only council to achieve no rent increase. That fits in with the SNP's record in every year of its administration of keeping rents down. Angus tenants have benefited from that policy. That has happened, despite the Government's policy.

Mr. Tony Worthington:: Has the hon. Gentleman noted that there is no connection between what he has said and what my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) said? Will he now make such a connection?

Mr. Welsh: The only connection that it is feasible to make is the contribution made by the Tayside region towards rates collection by Angus district as collection agents. Its rent record is much more important. After having one of the highest rent levels throughout Scotland under the Conservatives, Angus now enjoys under the SNP one of the lowest rent levels in Scotland. I repeat that that record has been achieved by its own management record and despite the Government's policy.

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Angus district council is collecting the poll tax and giving a subsidy to the tenants, which is a bit of a contradiction in terms. Hamilton district council, which covers part of my constituency, has refused to collect the poll tax, with the result that tenants have been penalised by 28p per week. However, we are standing by our principles. We do not speak about them; we act on them.

Mr. Welsh: I do not know whether that intervention was helpful. However, the hon. Gentleman is on very weak ground, since fewer than a quarter of his colleagues have turned up, so perhaps we could point an accusing finger at them.
I reiterate that the low-rent policy in Angus has been achieved by good government which has benefited the tenants. Tenants in other districts will not be so fortunate. Rent increases have been outpacing inflation. The capital allocation is about 50 per cent. short of what is required seriously to tackle Scotland's housing problems. That is due to this Government's policies, which are inadequate to meet Scotland's housing needs. The housing support grant package is typical of the Government's attitude, and it simply will not do.

Dr. John Reid: I am very grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker for having called me. I was getting worried about the lateness of the hour. I am glad that I have been called to speak in the debate, because I have issued a press release. I should not have liked to annoy Conservative Members twice in one week.
I shall repeat a few items that some hon. Members have read, because there are visitors in the Strangers Gallery who are eager for details of Scotland. It will permit me to repeat a few points that have already been published. I did


not intend to speak in the debate, but I am doing so as a result of popular acclaim. I do not withdraw or regret one word that I did not say last Tuesday in the House. I agree with every word that I did not have the opportunity to say on that occasion, but there are two tragedies to which I wish to refer.
First, in the seven days since I should have made that speech, there has been no change in the housing situation in Scotland. Secondly, it is rare in the history of Parliament for a Minister to be given one week's notice of the detailed case that is to be made against him and to be given the opportunity at the Dispatch Box to reply to the criticisms that are made of him and still to make such a pathetic effort of defending the Government's record.
Another item should be mentioned at the beginning of my speech. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is laughing. I enjoyed listening to his interventions and jokes this evening. God knows the people of Scotland have little enough to laugh about. One thing in particular intrigued me℄that the Minister, the hon. Member for Tayside, North and their colleague the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn) actually read the Evening Times and are affected by it. That only goes to create a new law in physics—that even paper can sometimes penetrate the thickest walls of the largest mansions and the thickest minds of the biggest bigots in Scotland.
I am glad to note that some controversy has been caused, but the tragedy is that, for thousands of people, the Evening Times—not the debate—will bring little information or solace. Even tonight, as we debate the issue in the relative warmth of a comfortable Chamber, beneath the vaulted ceilings of the Palace of Westminster, almost 30,000 people will share neither warmth nor a roof over their heads. It has already been mentioned that 29,185 people in Scotland will draw little solace from warmth or a roof. They will not read Hansard in the morning, and they will not have read it last Wednesday. Therefore, they will know little of our debates.
Few of those 30,000 people will hear about the debate on wireless or television. They do not have wireless or television, or access to the privacy that allows them to listen to radio or to watch television. Many of them will pick up one or two pieces from the popular press about a debate that is carried on late at night, yet those 30,000 people are the real substance of the debate. I make no apology for having tried to highlight their plight by every possible means. If that resulted in a joke, because the Government's incompetence lost us a debate that we should have had a week ago, it is not I, but Conservative Members, who should apologise.
Those 30,000 people are the real substance of the debate. They have been mentioned by hon. Members tonight. I refer not only to the young couple who were mentioned in the Evening Times article. There are many of them. Last week they were still lying on relatives' couches, trying to keep marriages together in their early months. This week they are on the very same couches and they have not been forced to move on to others.
Old couples have been mentioned. I refer to people who have lived for years and decades in family homes. Because of a drastic delay in repairs and damp conditions, they now find themselves either having to move out of their homes or, once again in their old age, become dependent on people who are much younger. I make no apology for having raised that matter. Tonight we can debate the

consequences of the Government's failure to provide adequate housing support in Scotland, but the people such as those whom I have mentioned must suffer the consequences of the Government's housing policy.
For many years, it has been obvious that the overall picture of contributions for council housing in Scotland has been one of cuts and neglect, so there is nothing new in the substance of tonight's debate. The proposals for 1989–90 do nothing to halt that neglect. There has been a real cash reduction of about £96 million, which will do nothing to reverse the opinion of people in my constituency and others who suffer throughout Scotland that the Government are the real enemy when it comes to imposing rent increases upon them time and again. Nothing will be done to ease the burden of council tenants with rent arrears caused by cuts in housing benefits.
When I listened to some of the smug jokes that were being put around tonight, I thought of a case that I have mentioned in the House before. I make no apology for raising it a second time. An 83-year-old man is suffering from pneumoconiosis. One does not get that disease in a billiard hall or a pub. It is the result of a lifetime of working in the depths of a pit and producing wealth for others. That man went to war in 1939. He did not ask then what his country could do for him, or what he could do for his country. He just went and did what he had to. Now, the Government have taken away his housing benefit, and his rent has increased from 72p to £47 a fortnight. Surely someone with that record is entitled to ask, in the last decades of his life, what his country is going to do for people such as him.
Since the Government took office nine years ago, rents in Scotland have increased by an average 230 per cent.—

Mr. Bill Walker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way with his usual courtesy. When he gives us these figures, will be carefully consider the level of housing support before the Conservatives came in in 1979? What was it in real terms? What is it today? Will he consider the fact that increased rents for those who can afford to pay them have gone into the housing coffers? Those who cannot afford to pay are—properly—given housing benefit.

Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) has already dealt with some of those points. As others of my hon. Friends have said, many local councils and district authorities get not a penny, compared with 1979. The amount of unemployment that has been created in Scotland since 1979 is another part of the equation.
The defence put up by the hon. Member for Tayside, North is an unusual one. The Government would usually plead that rent increases had nothing to do with them. They are all to do with supply and demand—with the laws of the economy, or the Book of Revelations. They are never anything to do with the Government. In this case they cannot claim that, because there is nothing natural about a 230 per cent. increase in rents. It is out of all proportion to increases in housing costs, as dictated by the supply and demand of the market that is so beloved of the Government in other circumstances.
For instance, since 1981, housing costs—on the Government's usual criteria—have risen by 44 per cent. in Scotland; during the same period, the Government have compelled rents to rise by 124 per cent.—80 per cent. More


—to compensate for the loss of central grant and local contributions. That increase—from £4·92 to £16·23 a week—is of staggering proportions. It cannot be related to supply and demand.
Yet this order means that average rent increases next year will once again immensely outstrip inflation, with some authorities being forced to consider increases of £3 a week or more, or £4 or more in the Glasgow area.
What will we say to constituents who are already going under with rent arrears? There has been a massive increase in rent arrears in the past year. I can only tell my constituents the shameful truth about the Government's dogmatic insistence on undermining public sector housing, and the roles that rent increases and the sales of council houses have played in that. I can tell them that housing support grant is the only direct government subsidy for Scottish housing, and that this deliberate Government policy has meant more than £290 million in cuts in grants and subsidies. I can tell them that as a result of that, council rents are now more than £7 a week higher than they would otherwise have been.
None of this compensates for the misery that has already been suffered, and which will continue to be suffered, in many parts of Scotland. Those increases might buy some hon. Members a large cigar or a couple of brandies after dinner, but over a week, they are sufficient to cripple many households in my constituency and throughout Scotland which are already crippled by debts and which will face even greater debts as a result of the poll tax.
When, in anticipation of some of the points that my hon. Friends and I would raise, the Minister told us that rents in Scotland were lower than those in the southern half of England or across the border in England, and when he accused Motherwell district council of keeping rents artificially low in comparison with those elsewhere, for instance in the south of England, why did he also not tell us the average salary in the south of England compared with the average salary in Bellshill Shotts, Newarthill or Carfin? Why did he not tell us the average rate of unemployment in the south of England compared with that in parts of my constituency? Perhaps it is because he does not know, but it could be because he does not want to ask himself the question because once he reveals the average salaries and access to jobs in those areas, he will have to concede as a matter of moral principle and economics that rents in certain areas of the country are justifiably low because of social and economic circumstances.
I take it as a testimony of the efforts made by my colleagues who serve on Motherwell district council that they should be criticised here for attempting to ensure that the social and economic effects of poverty and unemployment in Motherwell district are compensated for by some attempt to defend the rents of the people in the area. As my father used to say, "If the crowds boo you and you are away from home, you're playing a damn good game." When the Minister criticises the action of Motherwell district council, that is the best testimony that it could have that its efforts are being well directed for the people who elected it.
The word "crisis" is used liberally these days, but when one considers rent increases and sees how little money is

available for capital investment or improvements in existing stock or for essential repairs to homes, using the word "crisis" in relation to Scottish housing is justified. Indeed, many would say that it is a moderate word to use.
I am surprised that the Minister should be upset that I have released the Government's own dubious statistics because whether they have been used in a speech in the House of Commons or not, they are the Government's own statistics—and they show that, of the 843,000 council homes in Scotland, no fewer than 356,752 need modernisation, 88,044 need rewiring and, most worrying for pensioners or for people with young families, 234,000 suffer from damp and almost 154,000 need major structural repairs. It is no wonder that the Minister and his cohorts do not like figures like that plastered about in their popular press, even if they are the results of his own Department's investigations into the inadequacies of Scottish council housing at present. Those figures can only worsen as a result of the facts given tonight. Indeed, they have already become worse because the figures that I have just given described the position in 1986 and there have been two more tragic years of rundown in council housing since then.
Once again tonight, just as in the tax cuts for the rich, just as in the social security cuts for the poor and just as in the cuts in housing benefit, the Government are cynically hammering the poorest and the most vulnerable in our communities in Scotland. Is it not significant that while central Government support for mortgage interest tax relief continues to increase, direct Government grants in support of local authority housing costs have decreased from £228 million in 1980–81 to £60 million next year?
It is conventional in such debates to refer to one's own constituency and district council and to speak about the effect of the order under debate. Nothing could be simpler. The effect in terms of benefit to my constituency will be absolutely zero. We will receive nothing in grant. Motherwell district council's housing support grant has plummeted from £8·19 million in 1980–81, the year after the Government came to power, to £5·74 million the following year, to £3·3 million in 1982–83 and to £1·4 million in 1983–84, and there has been nothing at all since 1984.
The Minister knows, as I know, that my constituents have paid the price of the Prime Minister's antipathy and antagonism towards them. My constituency has one of the highest proportions of council house tenants in Scotland and a high proportion of unemployment and poverty. As a result of not having voted for the Prime Minister, not coming from her small middle-class shop keeping background or not being successful capitalists, my constituents have been penalised at the rate of £1 million per year. That is £9 million over nine years. If there were anything left, the Prime Minister would take it away. She has taken it all away and my constituents receive nothing in grant.
In the debate the Minister revealed the Government's antagonism towards council housing. I am glad that he made the admission and my hon. Friends will remember it. The Government blame local authorities for pushing up rents. The Minister confessed, probably inadvertently, that rents have been forced up, not because of floating or supply and demand, but because they were too low when the Government came to power. That gives the lie to any


accusation that rent rises have been caused by anything other than a Government who came to power bent on increasing rents.
Motherwell has not been alone in the scale of its central Government deprivation. As we have heard in the debate, 56 authorities qualified for grant in 1980–81 and that figure has steadily fallen to 23. That has been brought about by a hostile Government on the basis of spurious assumptions. The factors used to determine an authority's eligibility for housing support grant ignores the actual position of housing authorities. The steady reduction by the Government has been brought about by ignoring the actual position of housing and substituting expenditure and income figures that they deem should be applied.
"Deem" is a peculiar word and is constantly used in courts. It means that although it is not known whether something happens and no one has any idea whether it could happen, it will be made up. "Make it up" is translated into legal language and becomes "deem. The Government ignore what is happening on the ground, the actuality of housing problems, and deem the housing needs of an area. In other words, they make something up to suit their own restrictive dogma. Put simply, the Government understate the need for expenditure and overstate the level of income likely to be achieved by a local authority. The difference between the two represents the Government's financial obligation which is steadily and significantly reduced.
Instead of deeming, making up and cutting by stealth, why do the Government not acknowledge the massive need for investment to halt the crisis in Scottish housing? Over £1,000 million per annum is needed to tackle the problem but only £569 million has been planned for next year. When consent to apply higher levels of investment in housing has occurred, it has largely arisen from council house sales, which further reduce the public sector stock, and are at the expense of grants and subsidies and lead to higher rents. The Government have contrived to manufacture the worst of all worlds for council house tenants. Had that arisen by accident or by incompetence it would have been a sufficient stain on the Government's record. When it arises as the predictable outcome of deliberate, contrived policy it is a matter of shame for the Government and for the House.
I wish that last Tuesday I had had the opportunity to go into the Lobby to vote against the Government on this issue. I wish that I had that opportunity every night, because every night the Government need reminding of the misery that they are inflicting on thousands of council house tenants in Scotland. That is why, even if the opportunity comes late, I shall be proud to walk into the Lobby to vote against the Government.

Mr. John McAllion: The Government Benches have been sparsely populated for most of this debate. When they have actually shown their faces, English Tory Members have shuffled impatiently as though they were anxious for the business to be concluded so that they could get away home to their beds. The Strangers Gallery is almost empty, the Press Gallery is empty, and the clock tells us that we are well on the wrong side of midnight. All these things tell us that the mother of Parliaments, the seat of democracy, is dealing with Scottish business in the way that it usually does. It is little

wonder that there is such unhappiness in Scotland with the constitution of the United Kingdom and the way in which the Westminster Parliament deals with Scottish business, or that there is such a demand for Scottish business to be returned to Scotland and put under Scottish control. I do not ask that the House changes the way that it handles Scottish business by having it earlier in the day. I ask that the Government grant the Scottish people what they have always wanted: their own assembly, to look after their own affairs away from this place, so that housing and other matters that are specific to Scotland can be dealt with in Scotland by Scots.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: I know that my hon. Friend will wish to ensure that the record is accurate, and show that the press have not gone home entirely, but were so buried with their heads down in their notebooks taking every word of his sensible comments that he did not see them from his position.

Mr. MacAllion: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the press man who is sitting alone in the Gallery and is acting as a stringer for everyone else.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I am not sure whether hon. Members are aware that it is not in order to refer to the occupants of the Press Gallery.

Mr. McAllion: I will accept your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I was grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden, (Mr. Dewar), who drew our attention to a dramatic speech made by the Secretary of State for Scotland. That speech was made not during this debate—it has been his wont to take part in only few debates on Scottish business—but in a previous Parliament, and in it he complained about the corrupt system of council housing finance in Scotland, which he believed was corrupt because it benefited Labour voters. That comment shows the true genesis of the poll tax. Far from trying to root out corruption, and get rid of a corrupt system of financing local government, the Secretary of State has introduced another corrupt system of local government that will benefit Tory voters—the poll tax.
The Minister described housing support grant as a deficit subsidy. However, if there is no deficit in the way in which the council meets its housing costs, there can be no housing support for the council. How does one establish whether a deficit exists? The Minister said that one makes reasonable assumptions about the income and expenditure of local councils' housing revenue accounts.
Such a system depends on those who are making the assumption, and whether that assumption is reasonable. The Minister seems to be saying that a Tory Minister who knows little about housing in Dundee can make an assumption about the income of the Dundee district council and its expenditure on its 38,000 council houses and can arrive at the conclusion that there is no deficit on the council's housing revenue account, so it should get no subsidy from central Government funds. I can tell the Minister that Dundee district council's housing revenue account for next year will have to receive an additional £6 million over what it received last year, and the Minister is saying that that money will have to be found directly from increases in rent for council house tenants in Dundee and from no other source.
People who, like me, are owner-occupiers can look forward to central Government subsidies to meet their housing costs in the coming year, but those in the 38,000 council households will get no such subsidy because the Minister says that the revenue must come from rent increases. The people of Dundee are facing rent increases not of £1·34 per week but £3·95 and many tenants will face increases as high as £5·50 a week. The Minister says that that is because the rents have traditionally been too low.
An old couple came to see me last week in my surgery. They have suffered badly under the housing benefit changes introduced by the Government. They are receiving some transitional protection but they have not received any payment for some weeks. They were concerned about the rent increase about to be imposed upon them because they were down to the last £200 of their savings. A few months ago they had £340 but they had to eat into that to pay the rent increase as it stands now. The Minister is telling those people that they will just have to live with it and eat into their savings. After that, I do not know what will happen to them. Perhaps the Minister will explain how that old couple can stop worrying about the rent increases that he is imposing on the people of Dundee and no one else.
If anything is more arcane or difficult to follow than the procedures of the House, it is local government finance. So many phrases have been thrown into the debate—the general fund contribution, the housing revenue account, the housing revenue account block A capital allocation, the housing revenue account block B capital allocation and so on—that it is not difficult to understand why people in Scotland sometimes find it hard to follow the debates about housing and rent that take place here.
My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) said that none of the 30,000 homeless in Scotland would follow the debate closely or be able to question anyone on it. I doubt whether many council tenants in Scotland will follow the debate closely, not only because it involves obscure and detailed language with which they are not familiar, but because the Government deliberately stage it at this early hour in the morning when no members of the press are present. so that it will not appear in the press tomorrow and will not be on the radio or television. No one will know why their rent has increased.
When the people in Dundee try to find out why their rent has increased by £3·35 or £5·50 a week, we all know what they will be told by D C Thomson press in Dundee. It will say that the Labour council increased the rents as will Tory Ministers and the SNP opposition on Dundee district council. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Government and the Minister now sitting on the Front Bench are increasing rents. No matter how obscure the Minister makes that or how much he wraps it in detailed language, that is the truth and we will ensure that the people of Dundee realise that.
That becomes obvious if one looks closely at the housing revenue account for Dundee district council. Compared to last year the council will have to find an additional £6·3 million next year. There are many reasons why it has to find that additional expenditure and most of them are caused by the Government. First, there is inflation. The Chancellor set himself the target of zero

inflation but the Morning Star on Saturday said in banner headlines that inflation was 6 per cent. plus and rising. The Morning Star has always taken a keen interest in inflation and counter-inflationary policies. It was rightly drawing attention to the way in which the Government's economic policies are failing and the way in which inflation is imposing increases upon councils—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin) wishes to intervene, I will gladly give way. I would rather he intervened than continued to shout and mutter from a sedentary position.

Mr. Tim Devlin: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can remind the House when the Labour party managed to get inflation down to 6 per cent. when it was in government. I cannot remember a time.

Mr. McAllion: When the Labour Government left office in 1979, inflation was 8 per cent. and falling. Within a year, the Tory Government had put inflation up to 20 per cent. because they gave way to inflationary pressures.
Because of inflation under the Government, Dundee district council will have to find an additional £247,000 to be allocated under the repairs and maintenance heading of its budget. That is just to keep the work at the same level as last year.
One can argue about how much the Government can be blamed for inflation increases, but one cannot argue about, the other Government decisions that have led directly to rent increases in Dundee. For example, they have changed the rules governing the definition of capital expenditure. Repairs and maintenance carried out to re-lets in Dundee used to be paid for out of capital expenditure and came under that heading. Since the Government changed the rules that define capital expenditure, that can no longer be done. By Government diktat, an additional £1·5 million has to be raised from the housing revenue account and so from rents. That is because the Government will not allow the district council to proceed within the definition of capital expenditure.
In 1980–81, Dundee district council received £9·1 million in housing support grant, which enabled it to meet its housing costs. If that level of support had been maintained, a further £72 million could have been spent on the city's 38,000 council houses. If the Government had honoured their commitment to council house tenants in Dundee by continuing to fund that level of grant, rents could be £4·50 a week lower that they are now. Instead of having to face an average increase of £3·95 a week, council tenants in Dundee could be given an average rebate of 55p a week. That would have been the result if the Government had paid up what they owed in housing support grant.
In 1985–86, Dundee district council received £4·917 million in rate fund contribution—the general fund contribution as it is now known—to help it meet its housing costs. Since then, direct Government action has caused the contribution to be cut in three huge swathes so that it is now absolutely nothing in the order that is before us. That is another massive blow to the housing revenue account and another reason why rents will have to increase in Dundee. That is the consequence of Government action. The council is not responsible for that.
Changes have been made to the housing benefit regulations and the district council estimates that these have cost it £190,000 in lost rent. That sum will have to be found from the housing revenue account next year, and


that will mean increasing rents. It was calculated that on 31 March 1988, rent arrears in Dundee stood at £884,000. The following day saw the introduction of housing benefit and social security changes. By 30 September, arrears had increased to £1,226,000. The people of Dundee, whom the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) claims have been protected by housing benefit, could not afford to meet the increased rent levels. They were taken out of housing benefit and they had lost social security payments. They could not afford to pay their rents and the council could not get the money from them.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Some of my constituents have the good fortune to pay their taxes to the Perth and Kinross district council and some are infinitely less fortunate and have to pay their taxes to Dundee district council. As the same system of support applies to both councils, why is it that those who have the misfortune to be taxed by a rabid Labour-controlled council such as Dundee have to pay twice as much as the fortunate citizens who are taxed by Perth and Kinross?

Mr. McAllion: That may have something to do with the fact that Dundee district council has 38,000 council houses while Perth and Kinross has only a small fraction of that number. The costs that have to be met by Perth and Kinross district council are infinitesimal compared with those that are faced by Dundee district council. If the hon. and learned Gentleman had thought about that he would not have got on his hind legs to ask the question. I am glad that one English Tory—the hon. Member for Stockton, South—has remained in the Chamber to listen to some realism instead of opting to be plonked down in the south to learn nothing about what is happening in Scotland.

Mr. Devlin: How many tenants applied to buy their houses under the right to buy?

Mr. McAllion: I am coming to that. There is the so-called benefit that is derived from selling council houses to sitting tenants. Dundee district council sold 1,600 council houses to sitting tenants last year, which meant a loss of rent income of £1·802 million. That sum will have to be raised from the housing revenue account, which in turn will mean increasing rents throughout the city. It would be all right if new council houses were still being built, but there are tenants who are trapped in multies, tenements or other housing which for various reasons is entirely unsuitable for them. There is a massive shortage of suitable housing in Dundee and so many are trapped in unsuitable housing and pay high rents. That is because the Government are selling the only houses which these tenants can aspire to live in by taking a place on the housing waiting list.

Mr. Bill Walker: The logical conclusion of the hon. Gentleman's argument seems to be that councils that sell off more of their housing are worse off. Why, then, is Dundee, which has one of the worst records of selling homes, worse off than Perth and Kinross, which has one of the best?

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Member is not comparing like with like. Dundee district council is in an entirely different league from Perth and Kinross. I do not represent Perth and Kinross. If the hon. Member for Tayside, North would like to tell us how many houses that council owns, we might be able to make a comparison.

Dr. Reid: In view of the resounding silence on the Conservative Benches, are we to assume that the three supposedly pertinent points that have just been made about housing finance in areas represented by Conservative Members have been based on ignorance even of the number of council houses in their areas?

Mr. McAllion: My hon. Friend is right. I have given the hon. Member for Tayside, North every opportunity to tell the House how many houses Perth and Kinross district council owns, but he will not do that because he does not know the answer. Nor does the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn). They must sit in embarrassed silence because neither knows the answer, although they claim to represent that local authority in the House.
The Government's squeeze on capital expenditure in years past has contributed to rent increases. District councils, faced with a loss of houses because they have been forced to sell them and because they cannot get the capital allocation that they need to build new houses, have had to take out covenant schemes to build the houses they need. Such schemes are fine at the time, but a day of reckoning comes when repayments have to be made, and repayments are being made in a climate of climbing interest rates because of the Government's policies. That means another massive cost to the housing revenue account, and it is another reason for higher rents.
Labour district councillors in Dundee are doing a magnificent job on behalf of tenants in the city, whom they are trying to defend in a rapidly deteriorating situation. We have heard some statistics about homelessness tonight. Conservative Members had better know that, in Dundee, during the past five years, homelessness has trebled—and that figure does not take into account factors such as recent increases in mortgage interest rates, which will lead to a great deal more people being made homeless in the city. Housing benefit and social security changes will add to the problem.
The Government make out a good case for tackling the housing crisis in Scotland. They speak about co-operation between the Government and local councils and an attempt to deal with the many problems, especially in peripheral estates such as Whitfield.

Mr. Devlin: rose—

Mr. McAllion: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman several times.

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Devlin: On the contrary—the hon. Gentleman started his speech by saying that English Members are not interested, and now he is trying to stop an English Member intervening. All I want to know is how many private sector houses there are in Dundee.

Mr. McAllion: I have no idea how many private sector houses there are. At one time, Dundee had 40,000 houses, which constituted about 60 per cent. of the housing stock. It now owns about 38,000.
In a statement about the Whitfield estate, the Government agreed that the way to tackle the housing crisis in peripheral estates is to increase expenditure on them and housing services. When the Government are asked for the money, however, nothing happens. They


have slashed housing support grant, taken away the general fund contribution and slashed the capital allocation to the council.
Next year, Dundee's housing revenue account block A allocation is to be cut by more than 50 per cent., from £9·95 million last year to just £4·43 million this year. How is the council supposed to tackle the city's massive housing problems when the Government will not even let it borrow money to spend on housing? It is selling the housing stock as fast as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Garscadden mentioned the Minister's refusal to have a house condition survey, such as is done in England and Wales, for Scotland. However, there are housing check lists. Dundee district council carried out one of those checks last year to update its five-year rolling plan for housing in the city. It found that 13,800 houses needed modernisation and 11,300 houses suffered from condensation and damp. It has calculated that it will need £25 million a year in capital allocations to deal with those problems. However, the Government have suggested that Dundee should receive only £4·03 million in capital allocation.
We could understand that level of allocation if there was a shortage of money. However, we cannot pick up a paper today without reading that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has £15,000 million of Budget surplus that he does not know what to do with. We only want a tiny wee fraction of that £15,000 million to start to tackle the housing problems in Scotland. No one understands why the Minister will not agree to that.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman's head seems to be full of interesting statistics. If Dundee district council had £25 million to spend tomorrow, how would it find the work force to carry out the work? He knows as well as I that there is a dearth of tradesmen in Dundee to carry out that type of work.

Mr. McAllion: The hon. Gentleman has made an absurd allegation. He knows that the Government used to produce statistics which gave the numbers of unemployed people in different categories and from which we could tell how many building workers were unemployed. However, the Government were so embarrassed by the number of building workers on the dole in Scotland that they will not produce them. They refuse to give any figures about the number of people on the dole in Dundee. If £25 million was allocated to Dundee this year, it would spend it, but not in the way in which the Government would spend it. It would not spend it on one housing estate in the city which would be a kind of model to be publicised on the television and for which benefit could be claimed.
The Whitfield estate in Dundee shows what can be done, but every other estate in Dundee shows what is not being done for housing in Scotland. Councillor John Henderson has assured me that Dundee would spend the £25 million if it had it. I would be very glad to hear the Minister tell us at the Despatch Box that Dundee was going to receive that money. That would suit me entirely.
I came across an article in The Scotsman today about Mr. John Jenkison the director of housing for a new private management company set up under the Scottish housing legislation. He is director of Waverley Housing

which is targeting council houses in the Borders and taking over houses from district councils. Mr. Jenkison is quoted as saying:
Ultimately the district councils will not be in a position to offer choice because they will not have any stock. The Government is on course to remove that function from district councils.
That comment comes not from a Labour Member, but from someone who supports the Government's policies and agrees with the Housing (Scotland) Act 1988 and who knows what the Government are about. They are about taking the right from district councils to provide reasonable houses at reasonable rents to people on low incomes. The Government do not have any mandate for that in Scotland.
I began my speech by saying that a Scottish Assembly was the only forum in which housing could be properly dealt with for Scotland. I end on the same basis. We shall never get justice from the Tory Benches. The people of Scotland know that. We will never give up until we get a Scottish Assembly with Scottish control over Scottish housing.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Earlier tonight my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said that the Minister was one of the nice men in the Tory party. Some of my colleagues say that he is a gentleman. However, the people in Scotland in council houses do not need a gentleman; they need someone who is prepared to stand up and fight. That is sadly lacking.
Since 1979 there has been a systematic attack on council house tenants. Since then rents have increased massively by more than 230 per cent. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is smiling. He should come and smile at my constituents—the elderly and disabled—who are forced to pay those massive rent increases. Since 1979 the rents have escalated.
A report by COSLA shows that in 1986 the Government's limited statistics identified that, out of 843,000 council houses in Scotland, 356,725 need to be modernised and 88,000 needed to be re-wired. That is an unbelievable indictment. COSLA says that 234,000 houses suffered dampness or condensation, while 153,746 needed major or structural repairs. We need a Minister who is prepared to ensure that the housing crisis in Scotland is solved.
I was appalled to hear the Minister boast proudly that he was not apologising for the fact that rents in Scotland were going up again. He was quite happy to see a £1·48 increase—after the trauma of the housing benefit cuts, the fear of what the poll tax would bring and the record levels of unemployment that still exist in Scotland. People are suffering more and more because of the Government's inability to improve—or rather their deliberate policy not to improve—the quality of life for people who are homeless; people who are living on state benefits, but are desperate because they are unemployed.
The Minister is not prepared to stand up and fight. There should not be a £1·48 rent increase; there should be a decrease, and a massive housebuilding programme to give folk decent housing. We do not want the nonsense that we are hearing tonight.
I accept that the Minister is a gentleman, but I am no gentleman. I am sorry to see that the hon. Member for


Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars) is not here tonight for this important debate, but I was born and bred in Govan. I know what it was like to live under a private landlord. My mother and late father know what it was like for five of us to live in a single end. We were over the moon the day the note came through the door from the Glasgow corporation offering us a decent house—a house with a bath.
I had never seen a bath. I thought that it was something that you put a goldfish into. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but it was like that in those days. The only water that 1 had seen in a big bath was in the swimming pool. I do not have the background of a gentleman who has lived in a big fancy house. I still do not live in a big fancy house: I live in a Scottish special house, and I rent it.
I see the poverty around me, created by the Government's cuts in social security and housing benefits. I see the fear that the Government are creating in Scotland. I plead with the Minister to stand up and fight for these people to ensure that they need not pay such a punishing rent. He has the power to do something to ensure that the people of Scotland have a decent chance.
As I have said, my life started in Govan, and I went to a house in Pollock. When I married I could not get a house. I had to go to a private landlord. Eventually I had a bit of luck: I got what is called an "economic expansion house" because of my job. Unemployment is so massive that it is hard for anyone to get a house, let alone an economic expansion house, yet Government policy is to continue to push rents so high that ordinary men and women are forced to buy their homes.
I said to the Chancellor the other day that mortgage default was one of the main reasons why many people were ending up homeless. They could not afford to pay their mortgages, and were having to go on to the streets. Massive pressure was being put on the local district council, because these folk were genuinely homeless. They are systematically selling off these people's only chance of a house and a decent living.
As I have already mentioned, we have a gentleman as a Minister, and the people of Scotland are looking for leadership to ensure that they have the right to a decent house—a right to a home that they can afford. They want decent housing which is not suffering from all kinds of defaults. They are looking for leadership that gives them the right to rent—a right which this Government have denied to them.
I see that the other Under-Secretary the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) is sat there smugly smiling. I assure him that there are more than 3,500 homeless people in Renfrew district and Inverclyde who are not smiling tonight. They are weeping in overcrowded conditions. There are family bust-ups, domestic problems, divorces, separations and everything else going on, because of the level of homelessness. There are more than 30,000 people in Scotland whom the Government know are homeless. However, that is the tip of the iceberg—there are more than 30,000.
Many people have given up the ghost. We read in the Scottish papers the other day of an old man, who is living in a tent in a park. He is desperate for a home and he has asked the local authority to provide him with one. I am sure that the local authority will find him a home, but it is time that the Government gave the 30,000 homeless a home and some young people the right to a decent future.

They do not want a castle or thousands of acres where they can shoot partridges and grouse, they want a home where they can cook and from which they can go to work. It is time that the Minister gave them that leadership.

Mr. John McFall: Local authority tenants' rents have risen by 230 per cent. in the past nine years. As a result of these orders, we see that the average rents next year will once again exceed inflation. The capital investment required to maintain and improve the housing stock is still some 50 per cent. short of what the authorities require to tackle Scotland's housing crisis. That has been debated well tonight. The acid test was that, if the Government were interested in Scottish housing they would have provided a housing condition survey. They have not done so. They have, however, given us some limited housing statistics. In 1986, their statistics identified that out of Scotland's 843,000 council houses, 360,000 needed to be modernised, 88,000 needed to be re-wired and 235,000 suffered dampness arid condensation.
How are the Government tackling that crisis? As an example, I shall take my constituency of Dumbarton. This year Dumbarton has no subsidy for public sector housing. The last time it received a subsidy was in 1981–82, when the housing support grant was £910,000 and the rate fund contribution was £2·1 million. There was a subsidy of more than £3 million in that year, with £5 million income from rents. Since then, we have received nothing at all.
The capital allocation last year was £7 million, with the authority being allowed to go to the private market to find £1 million. It was assumed that £6·4 million would come from council house sales, but the authority will fall short of that—which it has told the Government—for many reasons, not least because not as many people are buying houses as was estimated. That is one consequence of the Chancellor's high interest rates. The Government, however, have set their figures in stone and are paying no attention to the problem. It would seem appropriate to be flexible and for them to look at last year's allocation, so that they could help councils such as Dumbarton to help the public sector tenants.
I would draw attention to an anomaly in Dumbarton. The public sector does not receive any subsidy towards the cost of removing lead piping. Lead piping is a problem in a considerable number of Dumbarton's council houses. I believe that the housing authority has drawn this to the Minister's attention. I ask the Minister to meet the local authority and discuss the pressing problem of lead piping in Dumbarton, so that we can get that dealt with. Strathclyde regional council has found a temporary solution, but the long term problem must be attended to. I hope that the Minister will undertake to meet and consult me about this matter.
The housing crisis in Scotland cannot be solved until the Government realise that a substantial, real boost in housing resources is required in the next five to 10 years. Over the years, problems have been caused by the progressive withdrawal of rate support grant and other moneys to local government. The Government are out of step with the widespread Scottish view, whether that is expressed by COSLA, the Building Employers Confederation, Shelter or Church organisations who


believe that decent, modern living conditions are an essential ingredient to maintain the social fabric of the community.
Last year the Prime Minister was up in Scotland talking to the Church of Scotland. At the end of her speech, the convener gave her a document on housing. In conjunction with the Secretary of State and Ministers, I want her to treat that document with the same urgency with which they treated the "Scottish Enterprise" document and Mr. Bill Hughes. I hope that the Prime Minister and her Ministers will consider that document over a weekend as they did the document presented by Mr. Hughes so that the problems of Scottish housing are put in their proper perspective.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In reply to the hon. Gentleman: yes, I will meet him.

Mr. John Maxton: That was the fastest intervention that I have ever heard.
It is traditional to say that this has been an interesting debate, but this has not been a debate.

Mr. McAllion: It has been one-sided.

Mr. Maxton: Yes, my hon. Friend is correct.
We have had the usual fumbling, inept performance from the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) and one Back-Bench contribution from the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). His only contribution to such debates is to say that, because housing benefit has gone up since 1979 and cuts have occurred in the rest of housing support, somehow the Government have been awfully generous to the poor.
I will tell the hon. Gentleman the facts. Every time rents go up, it is inevitable that housing benefit goes up. As soon as the number of the unemployed goes up, housing benefit increases. In 1979, however, the housing benefit system was much more generous. It included 100 per cent. rent rebate and 100 per cent. rate rebate. Now, every council house tenant must pay at least 20 per cent. of his rates and he will have to pay 20 per cent. of the poll tax.

Mr. Bill Walker: rose—

Mr. Maxton: I do not have time to give way. The hon. Gentleman made a lengthy speech, when his sole contribution was to suggest that there has been a massive increase in housing benefit, which is due to the Government's economic policies and rent rises. At the same time, however, council house tenants have had to face poorer housing conditions and cuts in benefit, but the hon. Gentleman does not recognise that.

Mr. Walker: rose—

Mr. Maxton: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman intervened on a number of occasions and I have a short time in which to reply to the debate.
My hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin), for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths), for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid), for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde (Mr. Graham) and for Dumbarton (Mr. McFall) have given a

catalogue of the cuts that local council house tenants in Scotland have had to face. They have described the appalling dampness in the housing stock in their constituencies and the ill health that that causes.
The debate has been so one-sided it is not true, but we are used to that in Scotland. The Scottish people have no one on the Conservative Front Bench or Back Benches to whom they can put their case.

Mr. Devlin: rose—

Mr. Maxton: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman came into the Chamber when we were about halfway through the debate, and I do not intend to give way to someone of that nature.
My hon. Friend the Member for Renfrew, West and Inverclyde described the Minister as a "gentleman" and other hon. Friends have said that he is a nice man. My hon. Friend may not be aware that when the Minister was at Oxford university he obtained a boxing blue.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Half a blue.

Mr. Maxton: Oh. I remember one of my hon. Friends saying that the Minister was unlike Cassius Clay—he floats like a bee and stings like a butterfly. That is certainly true when it comes to fighting for housing for the Scottish people.
However nice a man the Minister may be, or however nice my hon. Friends may think he is—he may be a good husband, he may be nice to his children, he may even have pets and look after them well—if he is prepared to take office under this Government, he is a Thatcherite and a cutter and he is as responsible for the poverty as his hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) who is sitting next to him.
The Minister is not a nice man. If he were a nice man he would follow the right hon. Member for Kincardine and Deeside (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) and refuse to take office under this Government. The only good thing that can be said about the Minister is that the only alternative would have been for the Government to appoint the hon. Member for Tayside, North as the Minister responsible for housing in Scotland. If it were not for the Minister, the hon. Member for Tayside, North would be a Minister, although he always said that he would turn down such an offer.
My hon. Friends have described the misery in considerable detail and have set out the facts and figures on housing in Scotland. But what are the Government doing about housing in Scotland? Why are they doing it? At one time I was generous. I used to think that it was down to blind ideological bigotry or to political expediency. Either they hated the fact that there were council house tenants, or they thought that if they kept raising the rents and cutting the services provided for council house tenants, eventually the council house tenants would turn on the Labour party, blame Labour local authorities and vote Conservative. That has been proved wrong and we know that it will not happen. Time after time, despite the pressures put on them, council house tenants have voted Labour and refused to vote for the Government. As a result, few Scottish Conservative Members have survived.
So why do the Government implement such a policy? I was generous in attributing it to blind ideology or political


expediency. It comes down to the Government's driving motive at all times—greed and lining the pockets of their friends. They force up rents, cut services and create a housing crisis, and then say, "There is a crisis and we had better do something about it." That is what they are doing. Now they will say to council house tenants whose rents have gone up by 230 per cent., "You do not have to stay with the local authority. You can go to another landlord. You can go to a private landlord."
As my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, East said, there is an article in The Scotsman today about the Waverley housing trust, chaired by the Conservative constituency party candidate who was deselected over the weekend, Mr. Michael Ancram. It is a charitable trust at present. It has taken over the SSHA houses and is now offering to take over the council house tenants. At first it is only managing them, but ownership will follow. Once the management of Waverley Housing have got their hands on it, they will rook the tenants. The tenants will be put into that position. Who will profit and who will benefit? The Government's friends and financiers, Back-Bench Conservative Members and people such as the Earl of Ancram, who used to be a Housing Minister, will benefit. It is all about greed.
Whenever the Prime Minister and her lackeys in the Cabinet talk hypocritically about moral standards and freedom of choice, it is clear that they are concerned about one freedom—the freedom of Conservative Members and their friends in the City to make profits. That is the only thing that the Government are about. That is why I refuse to call the Minister a nice man. He is a member of the Government. If he had any understanding of housing, any sympathy for council house tenants or any desire to do something about housing in Scotland he would fight from the Back Benches for his tenants and the tenants we represent and for whom we fight.
Where is the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars)? Does he represent council house tenants? What a farce. The hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) said that we should not moan, because we are not here in large numbers, either. The difference between the hon. Gentleman and Labour Members of Parliament is that we have not boasted about how we would take Parliament by storm. It was the hon. Member for Govan who made that boast. He said that he intended to disrupt Parliament. As usual, when people are in misery and distress, the Secretary of State can only snigger. That is the only thing he can do when he is in trouble. Time and time again the hon. Member for Govan has not been here for Scottish debates; he has been somewhere else, writing his articles for a despicable newspaper called The Sun.
I hope that the Minister will resign tomorrow and fight for council house tenants in Scotland.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The hon. Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Maxton) is doing his best to make up for the fact that he paid me a strong tribute during a housing debate in the last Parliament, which I used in my general election material. It certainly did me no harm.
The hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) asked about variation orders. If interest rates fluctuate by only 0·2 per cent., the practice is to introduce them.
One of the most important points in the debate was raised by the hon. Members for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) and for Angus (Mr. Welsh). They were concerned about the hostel costs of the homeless falling on the housing revenue account. They asked why tenants should have to pay through their rents for the cost of housing the homeless. I recognise that that is a problem. I have asked the Department to write to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and seek its considered views on the extent to which the cost of these and similar services should be excluded from housing revenue accounts.
The possibility of any change being made to the present arrangements will require careful consideration, not only in the light of the financial implications for housing revenue accounts and for authorities' general funds but also in the light of the consequences for the delivery of the services. In those circumstances, it is only right to seek COSLA's views before making any decision.

Mr. Dewar: I welcome what the Minister has said. May I take it that at least he is prepared to consider a change, since he is consulting COSLA with a view to reviewing the Government's position?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, certainly.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) suggested that, because some authorities in 1989–90 will not be allowed to retain or spend all the income that they receive from council house sales, the receipts will be reallocated to other authorities. That is not wholly correct, for this reason. For 13 authorities, the provisional gross housing revenue account allocation is lower than estimated receipts. Those authorities will receive more income from sales than their capital investment allocation, but in such circumstances the excess income will not be taken away from the authorities concerned; it will be used by those authorities to repay debts. That will benefit their tenants.
Because those resources will not be used for capital investment by the 13 authorities, we shall be able to allow additional investment by other authorities. Allocations will be made according to relative need across Scotland as a whole.
The provisional capital allocations for next year total £432 million. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Springburn (Mr. Martin) said that adequate resources should be made available. That figure is 11·6 per cent. more than the: equivalent allocation for last year. I appreciate that that level of investment may not be as much as some authorities would like, but I believe that they will be able to make significant progress in tackling their investment needs. When we announce the allocations at the end of March, I hope that the figures that were announced in December will be increased.

Mr. McAllion: The Minister has just said that there is to be an 11 per cent. increase in capital allocations. He knows full well that in the case of Dundee district there has been a 50 per cent. reduction. Can he explain that discrepancy?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I intend to deal with the hon. Gentleman's constituency in a moment.
The hon. Member for Springburn said that local authorities have been obliged to cut the number of repairs.


Obviously, it is for each authority to decide how much it should spend on management and maintenance, balancing it against the rent levels that it is prepared to set.
On the points raised by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. McAllion), the actual sums allocated to Dundee are much higher than he suggested. I will find the exact figures in a moment and give them to him. In any case, I will make certain that he receives them.
In his spirited address, the hon. Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) suggested that there is nothing in the orders for Motherwell. Our policy is to see resources for housing concentrated on capital expenditure. The provisional HRA capital allocation for Motherwell, which was issued in December, is 16·9 per cent. higher than the figure for 1988–89, which was issued at the same time a year earlier. It is up from £13 million to £15·2 million. We will certainly not forget the interests of Motherwell.
I was asked about Glasgow. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) asked why Edinburgh was getting no subsidy and Glasgow was getting £28 million. Glasgow received subsidy because it has an outstanding capital debt of £5,577 per house. Edinburgh has an average outstanding capital debt of £4,185. Therefore, Edinburgh has about £2·50 per house per week lower loan charges. The situation is not comparable, because Glasgow is the largest public sector landlord in western Europe.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: No, I am sorry, but I shall not give way. I have only two more minutes.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the backlog of repair grants. The extra £22·5 million that we have allocated to Edinburgh for 1989–90 on the non-HRA block will allow more than half the remaining backlog a considerable amount of it in his constituency, to be dealt with in the coming year.
I am glad to have been able to find the information for the hon. Member for Dundee, East that I could not find earlier. The Department calculates that Dundee needs to have an average rent rise of £1·03 per house per week. That excludes the effect of covenant agreements that Dundee district council took on, knowing that the cost would not be eligible for subsidy and would have to be borne by tenants. The hon. Gentleman actually used the phrase "a day of reckoning". Moreover, Dundee's provisional capital allocation of £17·4 million is 14·5 per cent. higher than the corresponding figure for last year.

Mr. McAllion: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall not give way. I have only one more minute.
The hon. Gentleman must compare like with like. The figure is up on the allocations for last year, and the final allocations will be made in March.
I stress that a further 8 per cent. has been allocated to local authorities' capital allocations in 1989, making a total of £445 million available for capital expenditure on local authority housing this year. In other words, allocations are up by 95 per cent. over four years. More local authorities' dwellings were improved in 1987. Over 73,000—

It being three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [20th January].

The House divided: Ayes 148, Noes 67.

Division No. 45]
[1.38 am


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Amess, David
Harris, David


Amos, Alan
Hayes, Jerry


Arbuthnot, James
Hayward, Robert


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Hind, Kenneth


Ashby, David
Holt, Richard


Aspinwall, Jack
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Atkins, Robert
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Batiste, Spencer
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Benyon, W.
Hunter, Andrew


Bevan, David Gilroy
Irvine, Michael


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Jack, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Janman, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bottomley, Peter
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Knapman, Roger


Bowis, John
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Brazier, Julian
Knowles, Michael


Bright, Graham
Lawrence, Ivan


Buck, Sir Antony
Lightbown, David


Burns, Simon
Lilley, Peter


Burt, Alistair
Lord, Michael


Butcher, John
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Butler, Chris
McLoughlin, Patrick


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Carrington, Matthew
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Carttiss, Michael
Malins, Humfrey


Cash, William
Mans, Keith


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Maples, John


Chapman, Sydney
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Chope, Christopher
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Conway, Derek
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Miller, Sir Hal


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Mills, Iain


Cope, Rt Hon John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Cran, James
Mitchell, Sir David


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Morrison, Sir Charles


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Moss, Malcolm


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Neubert, Michael


Day, Stephen
Nicholls, Patrick


Devlin, Tim
Norris, Steve


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Page, Richard


Dover, Den
Paice, James


Durant, Tony
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Porter, David (Waveney)


Fallon, Michael
Rattan, Keith


Favell, Tony
Rathbone, Tim


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Redwood, John


Fishburn, John Dudley
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Forman, Nigel
Sackville, Hon Tom


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Speller, Tony


Forth, Eric
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Franks, Cecil
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Freeman, Roger
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


French, Douglas
Thurnham, Peter


Gale, Roger
Tredinnick, David


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Trotter, Neville


Gill, Christopher
Twinn, Dr Ian


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Gow, Ian
Walden, George


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Gregory, Conal
Waller, Gary


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Grist, Ian
Watts, John


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Wells, Bowen


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Wheeler, John


Hanley, Jeremy
Whitney, Ray


Hannam, John
Widdecombe, Ann






Wilshire, David



Wolfson, Mark
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wood, Timothy
Mr. David Maclean and


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Stephen Dorrell.




NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McFall, John


Beith, A. J.
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McKelvey, William


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
McLeish, Henry


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
McTaggart, Bob


Buchan, Norman
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Canavan, Dennis
Maxton, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Meale, Alan


Clay, Bob
Michael, Alun


Clelland, David
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Cohen, Harry
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Morgan, Rhodri


Cryer, Bob
Mowlam, Marjorie


Darling, Alistair
Nellist, Dave


Dewar, Donald
O'Neill, Martin


Dixon, Don
Pike, Peter L.


Doran, Frank
Reid, Dr John


Douglas, Dick
Robertson, George


Eadie, Alexander
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Foster, Derek
Skinner, Dennis


Galbraith, Sam
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Steel, Rt Hon David


Graham, Thomas
Strang, Gavin


Haynes, Frank
Wallace, James


Henderson, Doug
Wareing, Robert N.


Home Robertson, John
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Hood, Jimmy
Wilson, Brian


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Worthington, Tony


Ingram, Adam



Kennedy, Charles
Tellers for the Noes:


Lamond, James
Mr. Thomas McAvoy and


Lewis, Terry
Mr. Nigel Griffiths.


McAllion, John

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Housing Support Grant (Scotland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 15th December, be approved.

Orders of the Day — A1 (Northumberland)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Mr. A. J. Beith: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the question of the A1 and the issues surrounding it, and I am grateful to the Minister for his presence at this rather late hour.
The Al, the great north road, has been the country's principal road for so long that it has been left behind in the motorway era. In the 1960s the combined width of the two carriageways at one point in Alnwick was barely loft. The years of piecemeal improvements have not produced a safe or adequate road. Indeed, in some places inadequate improvements have made it even more dangerous.
The problems are not confined to Northumberland. The notorious Yorkshire section of the Al will still not be up to motorway standards by the end of the century, and traffic from local communities will still be dicing with death if underpasses and proper junctions are not built to separate local traffic from fast traffic. The recent improvements at Stannington in Northumberland have cost lives because turning traffic has to wait in the middle of what motorists imagine is a motorway.
The 50 mile or so stretch of the Al in my constituency stands out for its inadequacy as one of the two main roads between England and Scotland. Virtually none of it is dual carriageway, except for a stretch that was built 40 years ago. New bypasses at Alnwick Berwick and other places are little more than country lanes and, as a result, lives have been lost. Seventeen people have been killed on the Alnwick bypass and its approaches since it was opened in 1970. Three people died in two accidents in the first two months after the Berwick bypass was opened.
Deaths and serious injuries continue. They may not come top of the grim league of national accident statistics, but to many local people they are particularly sickening because they would not have happened if this were a safer road. For most of the length of the Al in Northumberland, there are few opportunities for safe overtaking, yet long-distance car drivers find themselves stuck behind queues of heavy vehicles crawling up steep banks and around curves.
I have argued for many years that an increase in the number of dual carriageway sections would reduce accidents by allowing queues to clear, and I welcome the acceptance of this by the Department of Transport. We look forward to the planned dualling of a section south of Alnwick, but we need much more and the whole road, including the bypasses, ought to be dual carriageway. It is the best, indeed the only, all-weather route to Scotland and should be treated accordingly. I was therefore particularly interested in reports of studies now going on which involve both the Department of Transport and the Scottish Office. On 10 January, The Daily Telegraph claimed that the Department
is seeking a new route for the Al across the English-Scottish border".
It is difficult to imagine where that route could be, given the terrain. The Scottish Office is studying,
all main roads south of Edinburgh
and an announcement on that is expected.

Mr. John Home Robertson: The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know that this report


from the Scottish Office about a road south of Edinburgh has been eagerly awaited for months. I have been able to obtain figures which show that 283 injuries and 25 deaths have occurred in accidents over a three-year period on the five-mile stretch of the Al in Scotland. Does he agree that the time has come to provide a dual carriageway for the missing link all the way from Musselburgh to Morpeth?

Mr. Beith: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. He and I share a great deal of experience of that road on both sides of the border, and that confirms us in the view that we have expressed.
What do these reports and studies by the Department of Transport and the Scottish Office mean to the A1 in Northumberland, which is a vital link between England and Scotland? I hope that the Minister can give some indication what is going on. The Al is not only an important communication route through Northumberland; an increasing number of people earn their living from it. The Government and local councils see service industries and tourism as vital elements in creating jobs in the north-east of England and in the borders. Why does the Department of Transport go out of its way to prevent people from doing so? It seems to be running an anti-small business policy that is in direct opposition to what everyone else is trying to do. The most obvious example is in its attitude to signs. It has taken us years of struggle to get official signposting of major local tourist attractions, such as the castles along our coast.
It has taken even longer to get a system of approved signs for main services and major businesses along the road, for the cost of which those businesses are paying. What about the small hotels, craft shops, cafes and bed and breakfast establishments? The existing schemes for approved signs are simply not tailored to their needs or to what they can reasonably afford, especially when setting up a new business. Often, they resort to a neat, unofficial roadside sign. The reaction of the Department of Transport is to send out its agents, the county council, on a sign swoop in the middle of the tourist season, demanding that signs be removed, and even taking them away themselves. This is not a safety-conscious and helpful exercise, in which officials recommend better positioning of signs and clearer lettering. It is the Big Brother approach—"We run this road from London, and what we say goes." That is the tone that the Department conveys in its attitude to unofficial signs.
If the business man owns the roadside land or is friendly with the farmer who does, he can bypass the Ministry of Transport by putting a sign in the field and getting planning permission from the council. The trouble is that, along a significant section of the Al in my constituency, the Government own most of the land, through the Greenwich hospital estates and the Ministry of Defence. In other cases, the farmer may not want to be involved, or may even be in competition with other businesses because he has a farm shop or does bed and breakfast himself, as he is not only entitled but encouraged to do under the Government's diversification proposals.
I plead with the Minister to have a more tolerant approach to unofficial signs that are neat, well positioned and useful to the passing motorist. I hope that he will not try to convince us that these signs cause accidents. The signs that do so are almost invariably the Department's

metal direction signs, which are often dangerously placed, obscure sidelines and are, in many cases, ridiculously large, and, in most cases, larger than those that are required in other countries. I ask the Minister to give us a break and send the sign squad packing. There are many more useful things that those people could be doing.
Another glaring example of the Department's destructive attitude to small businesses is the saga of the Brownieside refreshment caravan at North Charlton. Not all refreshment caravans are a good thing, and some councils need to use their planning and health plans to control them. Alnwick district council is furious over the Department's attempt to close two such caravans on either side of Alnwick. It knows that closure, because of the drivers' hours limitations, will mean more heavy vehicles in the town, and it is satisfied that the caravans are well sited. The Minister wrote to me on Friday to explain why he is so determined to put Mrs. Rhoda Ewart out of business at her caravan at the layby at North Charlton.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman's speech later, but I hope that he will withdraw, or at least internally regret, the suggestion that there is any kind of personal vendetta.

Mr. Beith: I did not suggest that there is. I am sure that if the Minister ever met Mrs. Ewart, he would be enthusiastically supporting her cause. I am saying that if he continues to pursue his policies, they will put people out of business.
Mrs. Ewart keeps the layby in which she has her business scrupulously clean and tidy. When I called there this morning, lorry drivers expressed amazement and disgust at the Minister's attitude. I think that he has been badly advised, and I suggest that he takes a look for himself. In his letter, he says, that visibility at the junction is "less than desirable". It is actually much better than average for the A1 and very much better for heavy vehicles than the difficult turning to the service area at North Charlton, which the Minister seems to think is safer.
I wish that the Department's officials would stop passing the buck to the county council, which is merely its agent, and which, if questioned, will always pass the buck straight back to the Department of Transport. Nobody seems to be prepared to take the responsibility. In his letter, the Minister claims to be acting on the county council's advice, but at a recent stormy meeting with Alwick district council, the Department of Transport's official, Mr. Poulson, took the lead. He was quoted as saying that the Secretary of State believes that these caravans increase the accident problem because they attract people. If there were no people, we would not need any roads. There is no record of any accidents caused by the caravans. It is on the sections of the road the Department of Transport officials have designed to be safe that the fatal accidents have happened, not where these refreshment caravans are. Once again, bureaucracy has taken over from a proper assessment of the needs of people on the spot.
I will give the Minister details by letter of the errors in the advice he has been given and I hope that he will look at the matter again. In doing so, I hope that he will bear out his intervention when he said that he is concerned that


there should not be an attack on any one business. If he looks at the matter again, I am sure that he will want to review the decision.
I plead with the Minister to reconsider his instructions that all litter bins should be removed from lay-bys, except those with special facilities. Many people travelling long journeys are not willing to keep banana skins, chip papers and other rubbish in their cars and the absence of litter bins is an invitation to careless dumping. Some of it causes serious problems for farmers when small polythene bags blow into fields in which cattle are grazing. As soon as one crosses the border into Scotland different rules seems to apply and litter bins are available. Why is there a difference in policy on either side of the border on the same road?
The once proud great north road is now out of date in relation to modern traffic speeds and modern road standards. The Department's attitude to the growth of small businesses along it is equally out of date and does not fit the climate of small business growth and tourism and certainly does not fit an enterprise culture. It is vital to both nations—England and Scotland—to the north-east and to the borders that we should have a great north road for the next century and that enterprise is given a chance to flourish alongside it. It should be a safe route and a corridor of success.

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Peter Bottomley): The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) has shown what a pity it is that his party picked another person to lead it. I shall disagree with one or two of the things said by the hon. Gentleman, but he has shown that he can master his brief rather better than some of his colleagues and that he can speak in an engaging way, even though what he says is not always consistent with what he said five minutes before. He is a good constituency Member of Parliament and we would have liked to see him as the leader of his party, because he would have done it better. Good party leadership is good for the country.
I am not saying that the hon. Gentleman's party should return to partial government, because when it formed part of the Lib-Lab pact it was part of a gang that managed to halve national road spending in the five years from 1974–79. One of the reasons why fewer roads have been built than many would have liked to see—than even the last Labour Government would have liked to see—is that the economy was in such a mess that we had to wait for a change of Government to bring about growth in the economy and the improvements—with some difficulties—that have made it possible to increase the road spending programme.
I welcome what the hon. Gentleman said about the great north road. There is a great deal to be said for getting some good names back for our roads, and the great north road is one of the best, whether it is being used by an enormous amount of traffic or by a reasonable amount of traffic. Through Northumberland, the road is generally used by a reasonable amount of traffic. I am glad that there are joint studies between the Scottish Transport Department and the Department of Transport in England. We should have a route without discontinuity at the border. That is important as we move from the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed's constituency to the constituency of the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr.

Home Robertson). I am sorry to see that there are no Scottish nationalist Members present to look after their constituents' interests.

Mr. Home Robertson: I am here.

Mr. Bottomley: I have already paid tribute to the hon. Member for East Lothian.
We look forward to the conclusions on the joint studies. It is too early to comment now.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed talked about dangers. The first part of his speech was about cutting casualties. The second part of his speech said that perceptions of road risks are not as important as signs and in the later part of his speech he seemed to be an enthusiast for informal signs by the side of the road. Even with what I gently call the "reasonable" traffic flows on the Al in Northumberland, he should accept that our policy of having reduced signing wherever possible is one of the reasons why Britain has the safest roads in relation to population, in the motorised world. Not only do we have the safest roads, but they have been becoming safer, faster.
I was pleased to see that the figures for the third quarter of 1988 show that the number of people killed or seriously injured has been reduced by 6 per cent. The same sort of improvement was achieved during the previous year even though traffic growth was 4 per cent. a year for each of the past two years.
I pay tribute to many motorists, but 95 per cent. of the crashes and collisions that take place, leading to 300,000 people a year being injured and 5,000 being killed, are in substantial part the result of human error. Many new roads are intrinsically much safer than those that they replace, but they are potentially risky during their first few months of use as motorists become used to them. Someone who has driven through a village or town at a relatively slow speed, being within a built-up area, will sometimes start to use a bypass as though it is a race track. There are accidents on race tracks, and sometimes accidents take place on new roads. Whenever I am involved in cutting a tape to mark the opening of a new road, I welcome its construction but advise users to exercise care and caution while they are getting used to the road's new features.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed half alluded to the fact that, on the Al in Northumberland, the: injury rate is about two thirds of the average for that type of road. Given the bypasses that have been built and some of the improvements that are planned, the rate is better than average, but that is not good enough. The numbers of those who die, those who are seriously injured and those who are slightly injured are too high. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has set a target of reducing the. number of those killed or seriously injured by one third by the year 2000.
The House will have the opportunity of considering a Bill that is to be promoted by the hon. Member for East Lothian. Without commenting on its merits, it will be one of the few occasions during the past three years when an hon. Member has introduced a Bill that is designed to improve adult safety. A measure was introduced last year dealing with child restraints in cars, and, with the building of new roads and adapting the behaviour of drivers, we are trying to reduce the number of casualties. That is often the reason for having new roads, but we recognise also the importance of environmental improvements that can be gained by taking through traffic out of residential areas.


New roads can often lead to more jobs. If we can change the economic geography of a region by introducing better communications, either by new roads or by rail, we can serve the local people better.
One advantage of having more than one highway authority is that there is more than one approach, which means that results can be compared. Litter bins have been removed from most trunk roads because road users do not confine the litter that they place in a bin to that which is generated during a journey. They tend to take with them boxes and plastic sacks, or beds, for example, and leave them lying around. The result is that polythene bags are to be found in many agricultural areas. They are blown by the wind and scattered over considerable distances. They are eyesores around a lay-by where litter bins are still to be found.
The experience that we have gained from pilot studies is that the amount of litter is less when litter bins are removed. That sounds like a paradox, but that is the evidence. It may be that, as we move through the 100 km of Northumberland on the A1, we shall find that there is more of a Scottish pattern. Perhaps the people of Scotland take less waste out of their houses to take in their cars to a lay-by than the people of England. Scottish people may not open the boot and dump many other items apart from the waste that has been generated during their journey, but it is always open to local authorities in England to embark on more amenity cleaning. If the hon. Members for Berwick-upon-Tweed or for East Lothian would like to have more information on litter bins, I shall happily send it to them.
When I came to the Department of Transport, there needed to be a traffic flow of about 18,000 vehicles a day before consideration would be given to dualling. I am pleased that, during my time, it has been possible to start considering it where there is a flow of about 11,000 vehicles a day. That does not mean that a road with such a flow will automatically be dualled. Consideration can be given to dualling, however, where there is a flow of that sort. It would be wrong to go for dualling at Alnwick, where the traffic flow is about 6,000 vehicles a day, or at another place on the A1, where the flow is below 4,000. Where we count flows of about 15,000 vehicles a day it is possible to consider dualling—on some stretches we already have it.
Where it is possible to have low-cost remedial measures, we take them. We are keen to find out where more local problems exist. The hon. Gentleman referred to the mis-siting of traffic signs. If we have not got it right, we shall reconsider. I ask the hon. Gentleman to let me or the regional office know about what he or the local council regards as a wrongly sited sign, such as where sight lines are obscured for no good reason. I shall ensure that such examples are looked into. That type of detailed knowledge is of value to us and it shows the merits of single-Member constituencies, as one person can take a keen interest in where signs are planted.
The hon. Gentleman's real point is that there are further opportunities for improving the great north road up through Northumberland. He will agree that there are opportunities further south as well. He spoke about the Al through Yorkshire. Nobody can be satisfied with the rate of improvement, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join my club and say that we should get the A1 improved

before we think of building an extension of the M11 to the Humber bridge and beyond, as an alternative route to Yorkshire. The A1 is the great north road, and must take priority. Although it is now all wider than 10 ft., it has a long way to go.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) spoke about the Al today. As it was not in a Lobby, I think that I can regard what he said as not totally confidential. He is keen for the Al in that part of the world to be improved. I know that Yorkshire Members are as well. I pay tribute to the staff of the Department of Transport in many regions who are trying to tackle the problems of the A1. I hope that the whole House agrees that it is important to try to get the priorities right. That does not necessarily mean spending all the money on getting the greatest traffic flows. We must get the right balance so that we get measurable benefits in terms of time saving for people who obey the speed limits.
We can give quantifiable relief to many people who are affected by through traffic. The growth of traffic during the past 40 years has meant that many villages and towns have been separated by a fairly constant flow of heavy traffic. That is the point that the hon. Gentleman was getting at. He spoke about saving lives. He and I are aware that, today, 14 families received a knock on the door from a policeman announcing that a father or mother, husband or wife, or son or daughter would not come home again because they had died in a road crash.
It is no comfort to learn that in France, for example, the figure would be nearly 30, and that in Germany it would be about 20, for the same population. Even if we are about the best in the world, there are dramatic improvements to be made. They will come, partly, by having better roads which allow people to make fewer mistakes and render the mistakes that are made less damaging than when there is competition and conflict in a built-up area or a narrow road.
I would like to put in a plea to local people when a road has been included in the roads programme. When the highway authority, whether the Department or the county, asks for public views, people should try to anticipate whether they think the road is necessary. If they think that it is, they should try to resolve—after proper consultation—which is the best route, so that the road can be built more quickly. We are trying to reduce the time between entry into the programme and public consultation by years, if at all possible. After public consultation, we can move forward to the draft order stage and get the necessary public inquiry through without undue delay. It is possible to bring forward the benefits of new roads, as the hon. Gentleman said, that is one way to save lives.
Northumberland is not the easiest county in which to build roads. The hon. Gentleman expressed some surprise at rumours that there might be a new route across the border. I hope that, where a new road is on the margin of being built as a dual carriageway, we can find ways of making some of the structures fit for a widened road so that, when extra traffic is generated, it is possible to expand the capacity of the road instead of being prevented from doing that because the structures were only planned for the 15 or 30 years that were easily foreseeable. However, that is not a promise that every structure will be built for a dual carriageway, but we must try to take into account Northumberland's topography.
I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he made his speech. Life is not quite as simple in


roadside trading as is sometimes suggested. It is not necessarily sensible to allow a proliferation of signs for small businesses. I hope that the Department can continue to be flexible so that the rules which apply to a motorway carrying 120,000 vehicles a day are not necessarily applied to a road carrying 10,000 a day. We need some consistency in making road safety a priority.
If it is possible to find ways of meeting some of the needs that the hon. Gentleman has suggested should be met, either in terms of stopovers for lorry drivers or for signs for small businesses, I hope that we can play our part. In turn, I ask the hon. Gentleman to recognise that a forest of signs or lay-bys providing refreshments in a slightly unplanned way, is not necessarily the best way to serve the travelling public, whether in commercial vehicles or cars. It is not necessarily the best way to get the jobs which some refreshment sites can offer. The hon. Gentleman should continue to consult the county council and local councils to see whether there are better ways to make provision instead of testing the safety of any particular site as has happened in the past.

Mr. Beith: The Minister's confidence in the Government's ability to plan for people's refreshment requirements is politically inappropriate and not borne out by experience. Many people involved in roadside businesses who want signs, would be willing to co-operate

if the advice to them was, "Please put signs in a more sensible position and please only one sign." A strategic look at the A1, of a kind that the Minister has not referred to so far, will be necessary. Traffic flows on the A1 would increase greatly if it was of a quality to attract traffic off less suitable roads and if it stimulated the economic development which the area needs.

Mr. Bottomley: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That is one of the reasons why I normally get it in the neck for saying that I do not intend to spend taxpayers' money to allow more people to give up their British Rail season tickets to commute into central London by car. It may also be one of the reasons why someone else will be answering the next Adjournment debate on transport matters. I can think of many good reasons for building roads in some very busy areas. However, to build them simply to allow more regular journeys into the centre by car is not terribly sensible.
We are very keen to look strategically at the Al in Northumberland. We have put forward additions to the roads programme, and they are likely to come one by one. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome them.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes past Two o'clock.